[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 19454634568.jpg (133 KB, 708x708)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
Every source says some different number was shot down. Some say 71/103 were destroyed, some say 31, some say a third, some say none, some say nearly all. How many fucking missiles were intercepted?
>>
>>37582453
second sticky
>>
Probably zero to one, like last time. Some missiles may have missed, like last time
>>
>>37582453
I thought that was a dildo.
>>
>>37582458
And yet there are videos of Syrians celebrating and dancing in the streets because USA only hit 3 buildings.

Amerimutts are in full damage control
>>
>>37582453
Look at the videos of the "attack" does the tiny damage look like it was caused by 70 or even 30 missiles?

Merimutts are lucky if 10 of them hit anything
>>
>>37582710
/sg/ exists for a reason, shitskin
stay in your fucking hole
>>
>>37582710
Those 3 buildings probably held millions of dollars of lab equipment and years of research. America doesn't want a war with Russia, so they keep the scale limited.
>>
>>37582710
>USA only hit 3 buildings
And they were the intended targets that the U.S. successfully destroyed. What's the issue?
>>
We'll likely never know the exact amount until both sides officially go public about it (they won't because realpolitik). Right now sources are saying there were intercepts but the numbers can't be verified. Regardless, NATO seems t have hit all the intended targets while not stupidly escalating things with Russia or significantly changing the outcome of the war. The US just wants Chemicals out of the hands of a dictator (or remind him if he uses the ones he has he'll face a spanking) and to keep advanced weapons reaching Hezbollah. By this point everybody who has followed the war knows that the rebels are fucked and that Assad is still going to be in power. Right now the powers involved are levelling the playing field so that they can all hold as many bargaining chips as possible for when the war ends and the political battles at the negotiation table starts.
>>
File: Syria CM targets.png (2.76 MB, 1416x1043)
2.76 MB
2.76 MB PNG
With people are in denial even about earth being a globe so info on interception is pointless.
Only meaningful thing are the results.
>>
>>37582723
>>37582784
>>37582785

Full damage control. I bet you also think those buildings were producing gas because Assad loved gassing children for no apparent reason.
>>
The stats must be bad if the us military didn't back the highest number.
>>
>>37582824
>r. The US just wants Chemicals out of the hands of a dictator (or remind him if he uses the ones he has he'll face a spanking)

Why would a man who defeated ISIS gas children? For the lulzs?

This is the same as ATF killing those guys at WACO TEXAS on the pretext of them illegaly modifying firearms
>>
>>37582824
Please shut up

https://youtu.be/loIay5AQPww
>>
>>37582880
>Oh yeah! Well....
>Moves goalposts
Never change you autistic fucks.
>>
>>37582710
I thought we were talking about the SAM hit rate and not wether the targets were important
>>
>>37582913
>Reee don't argue against it because i can't defend it
>>
>>37582880
>strawmaning this hard
You still haven't answered the question. Neither you gave an actual argument in the first place.
>>
>>37582923
I'm none of those people you were replying to. I just think its funny to pick on retards.
>>
>>37582880
>>37582710
These
>>
>>37582911
Shut up about what? The fact that the general confirmed that the strike was limited strike to take out his chemicals and that all targets were hit? That he denies any intercepts (yeah, he represents the US military. Why would you, as an officer, divulge information that might embolden or help your enemy as well as cast doubts on your teams reliability). So Assad has no chemicals anymore, it's not going to stop him from winning the war. The strike also emboldened him and increased government support against the rebels because it makes them look like US lackeys the more they seek US help. Is it that you don't like people discussing a topic from a viewpoint that is different from your own?
>>
File: 98377273.jpg (92 KB, 787x807)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>37582453
>>
File: 1511832176001.png (153 KB, 675x675)
153 KB
153 KB PNG
>>37582710
>be in authoritarian regime
>gov't issues order mandating public celebration

too easy senpai
>>
>>37583034
dumb frogposter
>>
>>37582710
Correction, we hit three research compounds. Each of those comprised of several buildings.
>>
>>37582892
I don’t know, why would a brutal dictator who aligns himself with fucking Hezbollah oppress and use terror weapons on his own people during a violent civil war? I dunno.
>>
File: 1194012978972.gif (982 KB, 320x287)
982 KB
982 KB GIF
>>37582870
You trying to say those buildings in before column are real???

They look like something out of the original command & conquer game!!
>>
>>37582710
Three buildings that they know of. Thing is, the Syrian C&C is so bad they probably don't know about the other hits yet.
>>
>>37583034
True, Assad is an authoritarian regime, but you underestimate the Arab mentality. Arabs look up to strongmen who can at least guarantee as basic standard of living for their people. It's the reason Egyptians gladly replaced the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi with virtually the same military junta they had before. The Muslim Brotherhood started fucking up and challenging the army, who enjoys a lot of respect amongst Egyptian society and thus the people and the army booted them out. It's like thinking Russia sanctions are going to change anything in their foreign policy as long as oil remains over 50$ a barrel. "Oh no comrade! The price of consoles and western products have gone up! What do we do comrade!?" these are people who lived through Communist breadlines just a few decades ago and hold a very anti-American view when it comes to US foreign policy. Whatever support Putin and his government loses due to sanctions he gains elsewhere from hardliners and conservative Russians.
>>
>>37582892
Oh? And here I though Trump defeated ISIS

/sarcasm.

But seriously, gas weapons are nothing but trouble. Even the Nazis took one look at them and decided they were useless outside of exterminating vermin.

Seriously, it's like you didn't hear about WW1 at all.
>>
>>37583088
>underestimate the Arab mentality

You mean "Blame the Jews for Everything"?
>>
>>37583125
This actually works for many Arab politicians more then you think and it's often a go-to scapegoat when their foreign policy fucks up. However, like Lincoln said "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." so if they don't eventually start delivering they'll be booted out. If Assad hadn't been able to keep some of his promises and spin events in his favour then he would have lost any support he had left.
>>
>>37583162
Well, looking at it. I have respect for Assad. He does seem to hold shit together. Even though in the US we have CNN reporting fake gas shit, Fox News reporting how he lives in luxury while others suffer, etc. Somehow though "ISIS" get brand new Toyota Tundras and all sorts of Used plumbers (I think it was) trucks from America and the US is SHOCKED that happened somehow with all the you know.. trade restrictions etc. It is complete shit show of fake everything.
>>
>>37583197
The borders between Jordan, Iraq and Syria are huge and very porous. It's also a well known public secret that rich fundamentalists in the region fund terror groups by buying supplies through their US friendly nations using local political contacts and corruption. Lot's of the US hardware also came from misguided CIA operations under Obama, Turkish intelligence, probably Israel as well shipped through a middle man and Arab states that are aligned against Assad and Iran.
>>
>>37583023
Dude, you're going full vatnik, don't do that.
I don't support the situation in Syria at all, but Russia claimed they would shoot down the missiles, they didn't.
>>
>>37583261
Comes down to cost and supply. They have limited number of defensive ammo. Israel does the same with their Iron Dome dealy. They are picky on shots because of the cost of the missiles. If it hits some building abandoned then why care? Only have so many, use them up and you waste so much inventory.
>>
No one has bothered to actually address OP's question.

>It doesn't matter; targets destroyed.
Not the question. I don't trust western sources, and I most certainly don't trust Russian sources. There must be a third party who can verify this, but that may take time.

I'm also interested in what air defense systems were actually used and how many SAMs were fired. I feel like way may never know the answer to these questions. It is frustrating the lack of information we have in the so called age of information. I don't care about the politics; I just want to know.
>>
>>37583261
I'm trying to maintain a position that is neither Vatnik nor Fatnik, (like I stated before, intercepts or not it doesn't really matter that much as long as the objective was achieved). Russian radar was active but your right that the Russian threat of retaliation just turned out to be a growl. This again can be attributed to backdoor politics and political realism. Russia is not going to push things with the West where they stand to lose more than they gain. The West is neither going to do anything to directly challenge Russian assets or interests as long as they stick to basic international law. You can also interpret this as a Russian message towards Assad as well "Tovaritch, you come and ask us why we not offer help of anti-aircraft when you lie about dismantling and not using of chemicals?" (in case Assad did in fact use chems) so there are multiple dimensions to this event. It's just annoying how people treat politics like a football game where score tallies are kept, jingoist shilling is rampant and it's all about BTFO of your opponent.
>>
>>37583281
The "it would have been too expensive" argument doesn't really work when their rhetoric had been "ANY missile attack will be intercepted and a counterattack made" before the actual attack. It just looks like Russia can't back up their threats/promises of protection.
>>
Another point I want to make about Russia limited response is based on 2 other nations.
Japan: HUUUUGE changes going on with relations, islands and rights going on. So far seem to be going smoothly.
N Korea: They are a border and dont want them to have nukes either. US having to go to war will cause them to also have to deal with a border nightmare. They are more then well aware of the health problems if they come into Russia's side. So keeping America's will to push and succeed is a big plus in that area to keep the Kim Fats from trying to get testy.
>>
>>37583340
>It just looks like Russia can't back up their threats/promises of protection.

Not really, until US starts targeting primo russian/syrian military assets
>>
>>37583340
But to whom does that actually matter? Putin didn't lose face in Russia, because state media are running with the whole 78/100 intercepted story, and most will believe it. Otherwise, Putin does not care about international perception of Russia's threats/promises. They promised to support the Assad regime and keep him in power. To that end, they have been successful whereas any western attempt at ousting him have failed. What matter more in the big picture?

Besides which, this will change nothing. The west is not going to be feel any more emboldened enough to do anything other than piecemeal strikes in specific situations like this where the benefit is political (good press for the countries involved) and much less so militarily.
>>
>>37583286
>I'm also interested in what air defense systems were actually used and how many SAMs were fired. I feel like way may never know the answer to these questions.

They already claimed SA-3s and SA-5s. Look at engagement altitudes for them and compare that to the claimed flight altitudes of the Tomahawk (or if you want a better idea, you can find tons of footage from the Gulf Wars of Tomahawks going by at treetop level as in the first part of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMD5dLU73J8 ).
>>
>>37583434
In one video, I believe I saw a SAM positioned on a hilltop, which would give it visibility over low flying objects, assuming they have means to deal with ground clutter.

Otherwise, they would have to use some kind of datalink with an AWACS capable of detecting small enough targets like that to guide the missiles to their target, which is probably not a capability that Syrian SAMs have (or maybe they do?).
>>
>>37583431
This guy gets it
>>
>>37583491
I'm just surprised that there were no reports or videos of Pantsirs being used considering they are probably the best asset they have when it comes to intercepting cruise missiles?
>>
>>37583281
> picky on shots
How, do you think they know the missiles intended target beforehand?.......hmmmm
>>
>>37583555
They dont exactly turn easily and they arch so you have a good guess.
>>
>>37583582
>self guiding missiles are ballistics
>predicting a few minutes of attitude change over thirty miles to decide what specific buildings would be hit
No.
Either they knew where the chemicals were and weren't worried, or they couldn't intercept the attack like they said they could. There's no appreciable middle ground here
>>
>>37583518
My guess is that if any missiles were indeed intercepted, it would probably have been by pantsirs or possibly a few by kubs; S-125s and S-200s would be unlikely to do the job as they are basically antiquated at this point. It really depends where these systems were and how many of them. Just perusing the wiki, it seems pantsirs can engage 2-4 targets simultaneously while the kub can engage 2. Not enough SAMs, and missiles will definitely get through.
>>
>>37582453
The Pentagon reports all missiles hit their targets. Syrian AA only began firing after all missiles had impacted. Russian assets took no action.
>>
>>37583702
>The Pentagon reports

Did the reichsmarschall give an official statement as well? All is good in the vaterland?
>>
>>37583716
Stay mad, Vadim.
>>
One other thing I wonder about is if the targets we hit mattered that much to them. I wonder if, upon somehow learning what the targets were going to be, the Syrians said "Oh, that's what you want to hit? Hell, go for it." There's really little telling how much damage we actually did to their chemical weapons capability. Not to mention, since we broadcast the attack days in advance, they will have had the time to move most of the valuable assets out of those buildings.
>>
>>37582455
>ask about weapons
>get redirected to /pol/
KGSys
>>
>>37583718
>My country's government never lies.
>Only other countries lie.
Not that poster, btw. I'm just not a gullible idiot.
>>
Some people are literally claiming that three buildings were struck with 105 missiles. That's some vatnik-tier delusion.
It's obvious a lot of missiles were intercepted. Whether it was Syrians or Russians I don't know.
Russians claim 23 out of 30 hit the chemical research (or whatever) facilities, but that others targeting airbases were mostly shot down.
This makes more sense to be honest, given the number of missiles used. You don't fire 105 (or 103) missiles at three fucking buildings.
>>
>>37582453
>People still doubt the US State Department

You guys are hardcore shills. I've seen the photos of devastation, 100+ missiles sent to a single target and all of them hit. THere are loads and loads of target photos on the internet where it shows them successfully destroyed. And they are of different sites too, not just a single building destroyed to show for the 100+ missiles launched. You can see the despair of the Syrians after the destruction.

Just shows why America Numbawan.
>>
>>37583305
Agreed
>>
>>37582710
>there are videos of Syrians celebrating and dancing in the streets

Oh, well then I guess we must not have hit anything at all then.
>>
File: 15237572737170.png (444 KB, 473x585)
444 KB
444 KB PNG
>>37583764
>being this stupid.

See pic. If they shot down any significant number of the missiles, where the fuck are they? Where is the 20,000 Twitter pics with arabs dancing on them and hitting them with sticks?
>>
>>37583750
>hehe I'm actually smarter than you for denying evidence, Amerikanski )))
>>
>>37583817
Jesus Christ this is either a false-flag vatnik or you're legitimately retarded.
>>
>>37583826
Show me the evidence they were shot down.
>>
>>37583742
>Discussions about politics or current events belong on /pol/.

>>>/pol/
>>
File: 1462743639473.jpg (872 KB, 1200x800)
872 KB
872 KB JPG
ITT:
>All missiles hit
>SHOW PROOFS
>photos, video, press releases

>70 missiles got intercepted
>please present evidence
>NO YOU SHEEP. I NO SPOONFEED YOU CYKA BLYAT! SHILL SHILL SHILL!

This is the vibe I'm getting.
>>
>>37583832
How the fuck can I show you the evidence?
Do you think I have Syrian/Russian military records at my disposal?
I'm just applying some logic, no one would fire 76 missiles at a single building, despite what some retard drew.
That shit would be targeted by a dozen missiles at best and it would still be wrecked. Do you understand how explosive works you dumb nigger?
>>
>>37583844
Missiles are weapons, you dumb Russian retard.
>>
>>37583817
By the look of things they're currently working hard to dig whatever missile components they can find out of the rubble of that building so they can show them off and claim they intercepted the missile. That it was the building that did the intercept and not an AA missile, well, they may forget to mention that.
>>
>>37583859
Literally what >>37583817 said. Where are the 3000 videos of sandmonkeys dancing on missile bodies? Where are the 500. Tweets by pro Assad accounts saying they shot down 70 missiles?theres no evidence that any missiles were shot down. There IS evidence however that large numbers of missiles hit.
>>
>>37582892
Previous attacks aside, chemical weapons shouldnt be in the hands of any country. When the country is wildly unstable with many factions trying to gain control, it goes double.
>>
>>37583431
Russia doesn't care about Assad. Russians only have two year round deep water naval bases. Crimea and Syria. They are not giving either of those up.

In the end it's most likely a regime change with a russian puppet put in place.

All the west wants to do is bleed Russia and Sryia. They won't want to "win" Syria. Being a pain in Russia's ass is "winning". This is Afghanistan part 2 (for Russia). Make russia spend time and energy on a pointless piece of desert.
>>
>>37583826
Where the fuck is the wreckage Vlad?
>>
>>37583817
You DO realise there is probably not much of a missile fuselage left after it detonates its 1000 pounds of explosive payload?
>>
>>37583858
Only photos I saw were photos of destroyed facility. Which Russians themselves acknowledged. Remember, they claimed only 7 out of 30 missiles targeting those were shot down.
>press releases
How the fuck is that a proof?
I'm not claiming I have a proof, I'm merely deducing stuff from the facts we know.
It's obvious some missiles were shot down, because I doubt Americans went full retard and fired 80 missiles at a single building. Tomahawk has a 1000 lbs warhead for fucks sake. That many missiles is pure overkill, even if you are trying to saturate air defense.
>>
>>37583895
>>37583876
>if you are disputing we fired 76 missiles on a single building and you can't provide photos of every single missiles wreckage that means you're Russian shill!
Yeah I see where this thread is going. Bye.
>>
File: 1523885931585.jpg (72 KB, 720x808)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
oh sweet, they even made a cake
>>
>>37583920
Amerifats are the most delusional cucks out there.

They just parrot what their masters tell them
>>
>>37583890
>Afghanistan 2.0
I think you are greatly overestimating the level of Russian involvement in Syria.
>Bleed Russia and Syria
To what end? It's pretty much already a given that their going to win this war. Further involvement would only strengthen and embolden them.
>It's all about the naval base
not completely. Russia also wants to be able to have some influence in the region, especially when it comes to being a mediator between Syria and Hezbollah and Israel. Russia and Israel are big trade partners and hold close ties ,largely due to a large population of former Russian and Soviet Jews living in Israel. Russia actually wants a stable Middle-East but preferably one without as many NATO bases.
>>
>>37583820
Evidence A: Pentagon says no missiles intercepted
Evidence B: Russia says 78 missiles were intercepted

If you believe either of them, you are a fucking idiot.
>>
>>37583920
I'm not asking for every single downed TLAM wreckage, I'm asking for A SINGLE DOWNED TOMAHAWK WRECKAGE.

A SINGLE PICTURE FROM THIS INCIDENT.

SPOILERS: IT DOES NOT EXIST. T.
>>
>>37582892
>I don’t know, why would a brutal dictator who aligns himself with fucking Hezbollah oppress and use terror weapons on his own people during a violent civil war? I dunno.
Holy fuck other burgers are actually this retarded? God I hate my country some times
>>
>>37583956
Nope. Russia made claims without evidence. US made claims with evidence (plenty of before and after pics).

If you believe one, you are an idiot.
>>
Are there any pics of downed Tomahawks?
Last time they few they shot down were up on social media asap.
>>
>>37583956
I just don't understand how people don't view this as a reasonable assumption based on the information we have. Why the fuck is it all or nothing with most people on this thread!?
>>
>>37582880
This, the dod has been shilling for years
>>37582453
78, only 3 but their targets (mostly civilian) and NATO is probably too embarrassed to say
>>
In a way, isn´t this the best possible outcome?

>USA argues Mission Accomplished, USA stronk, no further action needed, hasn´t lost face to the world
>Russia argues all important missiles intercepted, no further action needed, hasn´t lost face to it´s citizens
>Syria argues that they got through the US´s ballistic onslaught almost unscathed, regime strong, hasn´t lost face to it´s citizens

5 days ago they all seemed like the course of action they would take would railroad them into proper war, now they´re just arguing semantics
>>
>>37583053
>brutal dictator

Daily reminder that all "Brutal dictators" were good boys until they messed with US or Israeli plans that includes Sadam.

Hell even Osama Bin Laden was a good freedom fighter before USA backstabbed him.

But denk dog for demucracy and freedumbs we have. We can chose to be homos and watch ball on sundays.
>>
Just to explain to sane people reading this: I'm just saying shit doesn't add up. You don't fire 76 missiles on a building of that size.
Americans themselves said 105 missiles were fired.
We only saw photos of the destruction of this chemical research facility.
>>37583959
I don't have it bro. I never claimed I did.
I'm merely saying that THEY DIDN'T FIRE 76 MISSILES ON THAT BUILDING.
How fucking retarded do you have to be to even claim something that ridiculous?
>>37583969
Can you please show me those pics?
Only pics I saw were of this one fucking building. Which wasn't targeted with SEVENTY SIX FUCKING MISSILES.
>>
>>37583998
How do you know that the damage isn't consistent with 76 missiles?
Do you have experience with BDA?
Or are you just hoping and wishing?
>>
File: 1523872356900.gif (3.32 MB, 360x344)
3.32 MB
3.32 MB GIF
does anyone wanna ask if the targets of the strikes were legitimate or not?
the Barzah facility they struck had already been cleared by the OPCW in February as not producing chemical weapons or violating any international laws regarding chemical weapon development

>https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/88/en/ec88dg01_e_.pdf

number 11
>>
>>37584012
You're either trolling or you're clinically retarded.
>>
>>37583890
You're right; Russia doesn't care about Assad. What they do care about is an opportunity to test their weapon systems in a real conflict and gain experience, and if they gain a puppet/ally in the process, then that's just a small bonus. Additionally, they want to demonstrate that they can successfully operate on foreign soil.

They are not being bled dry by this. This is not Afghanistan 2.0, you fuckwit. This is not a full-scale invasion. Their presence there is very limited.
>>
>>37584028
No I'm asking what expertise you have that makes you an expert in knowing what kind of damage 76 Tomahawk missiles can do.

Are you just relying on 'common sense'
>>
>>37583998
>You don't fire 76 missiles on a building of that size.
You do, and they did. These are precision weapons. You are a ignorant brainlet right atop mount stupid, opineing on things you know nothing about.

You are, in essence, a shill.
>>
>>37584060
No, I'm an expert on Tomahawk missile damage. I have seen lots of pics on the internet and have educated myself on this. I am an expert. You are not.
>>
>>37583764
There were 3 targets which each consisted of multiple buildings NOT 3 buildings.
It is not obvious any missiles were intercepted. Obvious: videos of missiles being shot down.

If most missiles were shot down we should see lost of partially destroyed targets. I haven't heard any of that.

Did they fire more missiles than required? Probably because Russia said they'd shoot them down.

I don't believe any government until more proof is provided but from all information presented so far the only conclusion is the US/English/French forces attacked and destroyed 3 targets just like they said they did.
>>
>>37583969
Are you legitimately clinically retarded? The argument isn't about whether or not the target sites were destroyed; they were. The argument is about how many, if any, missiles were shot down. It doesn't take many to destroy those sites, certainly not 100.
>>
>>37584073
>It doesn't take many to destroy those sites, certainly not 100.
To the level of destruction shown, as in, fucking erased? Yes it does, retard.

>>37584068
What a shill.
>>
>>37583920
That is ridiculous.

All I want it some proof beyond "that was too many missiles! There for most were destroyed" If Russian or Assad took down any missiles they'd upload a video of it bragging about it.
>>
>>37584073
How do you know that? Are you an expert on cruise missile strikes?
Again, are you just basing this on what you 'think' it should look like based on all your years of experience analyzing cruise missile strikes?
>>
>last attack on airbase
XAXAXAXAXAXA AMERIKA MISSILES DO ZERO DAMAGE

>this attack
XAXAXAXXAXA AMERIKA MISSILES DO TO MUCH DAMAGE

Fucking vatniks lel
>>
>>37584089
What makes it more pathetic is they're literally following the same script as last year, shill, divert, move the goal posts, then attack the character of their opponent.
>>
>>37584050
>>37584060
I don't have an experience with BDA. But I do have a rough image of what 1000 lbs of high explosive can do.
A building of that size would be leveled even if hit with a dozen missiles.
76 missiles is an overkill, even if they were trying to saturate the defenses.
>precision weapons
That doesn't mean they don't pack a punch you retarded fuck.
>>
>>37584073
>It doesn't take many to destroy those sites, certainly not 100.
they're massive reinforced concrete compounds, you have to hit them over time to destroy them, you can't just strike them all at once and be done with it
>>
>>37584101
So you have no idea what you are talking about then? Thanks for admitting it.
>>
>>37583944
When I compared to Afghanistan I didn't mean the same scope. The only play here the West is making is be a pain in the ass for the Russians. The US wants Russia to use their missile defense system. The US wants Russia to invest in Syria. The West can spread the costs around US/French/English/etc.

Russian wants all of what you said but there is no way this ends without them keeping their naval base. They can probably tolerate anything else but that is the straw that would cause a real conflict.

I agree Russia has to keep Syria or the conflict escalates. But again, winning for the west isn't putting someone new in Syria and kicking the Russians out. Winning is draining resources from teh Russians which they are doing. Maybe Russia believes a win is keeping their naval base. In that case, both countries will be happy with the final outcome (if not with the price they it paid for it).
>>
>>37584082
I said above I don't have any proof, I'm just deducing things. That doesn't make me a Russian shill.
Why are you so desperate to shut down any discussion here?
>>
>>37584132
Then your deductions are wrong and are based on faulty assumptions about reality.
Claims unsupported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>
>>37584132
>I don't have any proof
Oh trust me, I'm very aware that you dont have any proof of anything you are saying.
>>
>>37584132
>I'm deducing things based off zero evidence and ignoring the other evidence which contradicts my point
>but I'm totes not a shill guiz
0.02 rubles have been deposited to your account
>>
>>37582453
0 were shot down. 0 were engaged by Russia.
Russia decided not to engage them. And syrians with their stone-age AA (Some S-125 and S-75) didn't shot down a single missile.

Actually, it seems that USA warned Russia about attack and targets and told Russians to warn Syrians to evacuate civilians.
This makes sense. Now we know why Russia decided not to confront USA. They were acting together. All this "hurr durr we will kill them all" is just a show.

Americans are not dumb enough to engage targets withing Russian AA-zone.
Russians are not dumb to shoot down American rocket for some irrelevant sandniggers (and thus escalate conflict)
Major Powers reached a mutual agreement. Win-win situation, actually.

That's my conclusions from the Russian side.

t. Russkiy Ivan.
>>
>>
>>37584155
>Actually, it seems that USA warned Russia about attack and targets and told Russians to warn Syrians to evacuate civilians
This did not happen.
>>
>>37584086
I'm saying one could reasonably assume 50-70 could cause that kind of damage, maybe fewer. On the other hand, what kind of expert are you that thinks the devastation would have necessitated all 100?
>>
>>37584144
>>37584113
Problem is you aren't providing any evidence either.
You claim:
>photos
...of one building complex, destroyed. Are YOU an expert on BDA? How do you know 76 missiles struck it?
Russians themselves are claiming 23 out of 30 missiles fired on these facilities struck. You do understand that do you?
>videos
What videos?
>press statements
Laughable. I'm quoting Russians here. Why is my "proof" worse than yours?

You're assuming a totally unwarranted position of superiority here.
>>
>>37584169
I'm fucking done with you. Post back here EXACTLY what the pentagon said they used on what target. Any other response will be ignored and treated as a shill post.

Because it was actually 76 missiles on the building complex, not 100. You fail to get basic shit right.
>>
>>37584152
Look at this brain damaged monkey and laugh.
>>
>>37584169
I'm not claiming anything.
I'm asking for your knowledge and what makes you an expert.
I'm asking you to support any of the following with any evidence at all.

1) the Syrians/Russians shot down any Tomahawks.
2) the damage seen is inconsistent with the number of tomahawks claimed by the US.

I'll wait for evidence (even though you already said there was no proof).
>>
>>37582453
The world may never know.
>>
>>37583702
No missiles destroyed is a pretty big claim. If the Syrians could find the carcass of even one American cruise missile they could BTFO the pentagon. Since they haven’t yet I think it’s possible that all of the missiles really did get through.
>>
>>37584108
I know that variants of the tomahawk, and possibly variants of the missiles fired by the other countries have penetrating warheads. No one here can claim to know how many missiles it would take to destroy the targets, or whether all of those targets are reinforced in the way you think they are.
>>
>>37584226
This is my biggest problem with the "70 missile shot down" statements. You know damn well that if they took down one missile they'd parade that motherfucker's carcass through the streets of Damascus.
>>
>>37584234
>EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS BLYAT
>>
>>37584211
>not that guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox5BzyjpGKM

Watch this. This looks like a quite smaller missile, thus a smaller payload.
Tomahawk has 1000 lbs warhead.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MVyHq_8yrUQ

Even better, these are 1000 lbs bombs. Watch it.
Do you really think you need 76 of these to destroy a fucking building complex?
>>
>>37584265
That's not proof. Those are YouTube videos.
Watching YouTube does not make you an expert. Do you think that it does?
>>
>>37584164
Yes it did retard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/24-hour-hotline-ensured-superpowers-did-not-clash-militarily/

The same shit happened with the last strike.
>>
>>37584284
dumb frogposter
>>
>>37583982
>78, only 3 but their targets (mostly civilian) and NATO is probably too embarrassed to say
How do you know it was only 3? The military doesn't usually let out intelligence information like that unless they have to.
Learn to opsec
>>
>>37584284
>Yes it did retard
No it didn't.
The Pentagon press briefing (watch primary sources, my friend. Reading the news just tells you what the reporter thought) explained that the information exchanged was typical and would not have seemed out of the ordinary to the Russians.
So you are wrong.
Do better next time fuckstick.
>>
>>37584244
You could argue that the explosives within the cruise missiles exploded but that would make it impossible to prove either way. A poisoned well.
>>
>>37584307
>>37584300
It was reported in finland before the strikes took place that russia and syria are evucuating bases
>>
>>37584277
I never claimed I'm an expert. But I literally gave you a video of what 1000 lbs of HE going off looks like.
It just doesn't seen like someone would fire (ie. waste) 76 missiles on a target of that size. A dozen or so missiles woulf suffice. Lets double or even triple that number to account for possible interception/failure.
76 missiles just doesn't make any fucking sense.
And where did the other 29 missiles go?
>>
>>37584322
With previous interceptions of Tomahawks there have been photos of wreckage
>>
>>37584234
Not sure about tomahawks (they're subsonic, after all) but there are definitely air launched munitions that can punch through a foot of reinforced concrete or more.
>>
>>37584265
>Do you really think you need 76 of these to destroy a fucking building complex?
YOU CAN LITERALLY SEE THE TWISTED REBAR ON THE GROUND. AND SOME OF THE RUBBLE BEING HELD UP BY WHAT USED TO BE LOAD BEARING CONCRETE PILLARS.

OH, AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT SCATTERED EVERYWHERE. WHICH WAS IMPORTANT. SINCE THE AIM OF THE STRIKE WAS TO DESTROY THE EQUIPMENT, NOT THE BUILDING.

>>37584335
>A dozen or so missiles woulf suffice.
Oh my god you do not understand.
>>
>>37584322
I thought ABMs where kinetic kill weapons?
>>
>>37584335
>And where did the other 29 missiles go?

Maybe you could, I dunno, do actual research on something before starting to say random shit. Or did you come here to get spoon-fed publicly available information?
>>
>>37584284
>Q: I just want to clarify on the deconfliction line. You notified the Russians ahead of time before the operation began what you were going to do and what targets you were going to strike?

>GEN. DUNFORD: Gordon, to be clear, the only -- the only communications that took place specifically associated with this operation before the targets were struck was the normal deconfliction of the airspace, the procedures that are in place for all of our operations in Syria.

>: And just to be clear on the deconfliction line -- you told them that you're going to be operating in airspace, but you didn't tell them, the Russians, what the targets were...

>GEN. DUNFORD: That is absolutely correct. We used the normal deconfliction channels to deconflict the airspace that we were using. We did not coordinate targets or any plans with the Russians.

>Q: What was their response, sir?

>GEN. DUNFORD: That information was passed at the operational link from the Combined Air Operational Center in Qatar, so I wasn't on the line, but we -- that kind of information just, to put it in perspective, is passed routinely, every day and every night. So they may not have found anything unusual about that particular airspace deconfliction.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1493658/briefing-by-secretary-mattis-on-us-strikes-in-syria/

Educate yourself.
>>
>>37584211
1) Nope, none. Just what has been reported to me by both sides, neither of which I'm inclined to believe. I'm interested in finding out the truth and am willing to accept that all missiles hit or some of them were intercepted. I just do not think there is any reputable sources at the moment, which is frustrating.
2) Just speculation, because there are no sources I feel are trustworthy at the moment. Conversely, just as I don't know how many missiles would be necessary to cause that kind of damage, I don't think anyone here can claim from the photos that the damage necessitates all missiles hitting. I'm saying 50-70 is not beyond the realm of reason. Why? Because common sense dictates that western forces would have fired more than necessary to ensure the destruction of the targets.

I think you're arguing with someone else.
>>
>>37584335
>It just doesn't seen like someone would fire (ie. waste) 76 missiles on a target of that size.
Based on your experience as a strike planner?
>>
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.html

Anyway, compare it with this. 59 missiles on an airbase.
But apparently they fired 76 missiles on a single building complex?

As I said from the start, this doesn't make any sense, and putting 76 dots in MS Paint doesn't really explain shit.
>>
>>37584189
I was talking about all the targets collectively.
>>
>>37584381
Different targets. Do you understand that different events with different circumstances will look diffrently?
>>
>>37584300
>>37584307
“Russia received a series of crucial warnings from America of the imminent air strikes through a 24 hour hotline intended to limit the possibility of a direct military clash between the two superpowers, it has emerged.”
>>
>>37584377
Based on seeing what 1000 lbs of explosive can do, and based on the fact they targeted an airbase with fewer missiles.
>>37584354
Honestly the fact anything remains from that building complex is pretty weird if it was indeed hit by 76,000 pounds of high explosive.
>>
>>37584410
Here fuckstick: >>37584364
Primary source. Not a newspaper article.

Do better next time.
>>
>>37584423
>Based on seeing what 1000 lbs of explosive can do, and based on the fact they targeted an airbase with fewer missiles.
So based on no knowledge or education at all, and based entirely on what you found on the internet.
Wow. What a compelling case.
>>
>>37584423
I don't think you realize how explosions work (though i'm seeing this argument alot so I guess no one does). 76 1,000lb warheads does not equal the results of a hypothetical 76,000lb warhead. You're only going to get incremental improvements in terms of damage.
>>
>>37584442
>I don't think you realize how explosions work
I have seen lots of YouTube videos of explosions. I know what I'm talking about.
>>
File: 1500069622588.png (1.74 MB, 1280x720)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB PNG
>attack Syria and we will retaliate!
>holy shit guys WW3! WW3!
>attack Syria, Russians do nothing
>b-but... they destroyed 70% of missiles!
>b-but... those buildings were worthless!
>b-but... syrians celebrated!

Vatnik damage control is just incredible.
>>
>>37584436
Well yes, I literally posted a video of what nine 1000 pounds warheads detonating looks like.
Given the size of that building, I believe 76 missiles would be an overkill.
>>37584442
Actually it will cause more damage because of inverse square law. 76 1000 lbs warheads on a small area is more devastating that one 76,000 lbs warhead.
>>
>>37584473
>I literally posted a video
Yes. We know that the extent of your knowledge is what you find on YouTube.
>>
>>37583083
Anon, what do you think buildings look like from above?
>>
File: tomahawk down.jpg (80 KB, 752x423)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>37584339
Hold on, I need to google this
...
Okay, yeah. Tomahawks tend to leave a shitton of wreckage when shot down. Even allowing for premature detonations and unrecognizable wrecks there still should be enough trophies to hold up as evidence.

Syrian claims debunked, it seems.
>>
>>37584484
You however since the start of this discussion provided absolutely nothing.
You're clearly not interested in discussing.
>>
>>37584473
>Actually it will cause more damage because of inverse square law.
Not true due to how blast waves work on structures brainlet. The first bomb does the most damage. Get a fucking clue. It's why MOABs exist for tunnel systems.
>>
>>37584501
I'm not the one making claims. I'm asking you to provide some sort of real evidence of your experience or education making you a knowledgeable person on the effects of Tomahawk strikes.
If you went to the doctor, and he told you that he was never educated in the subject, but he watched a few YouTube videos and could google stuff, would you trust his opinion?
>>
>>37584473
Not the anon you're talking to but
>damage because of inverse square law.
inverse square doesn't apply here as they didn't all hit the same exact spot at the same time from the same angle.
>>
>>37582880
You Russians need to start working on more convincing stories. First you spam for months how western missle interceptors don’t work against houthi scuds, then apparently your missiles are 120% effective destroying first 30 tomahawks missiles then when you figured out they actually sent 100+ missles, you change your story to intercepting hundreds of missles.


Then the fact only 5 official mercenaries died when they sent hundreds of body bags back and ignore the ptsd filled messages of their comrades in social media.


Then you fucks blew up that Dutch airliner

Sooo start WWIII if you want, I’m tired of hearing about your lies and your deceit. Just fucking do it fags.
>>
>>37584513
This isn't even relevant to this discussion, even if I'm wrong. I don't know much about physics.
Americans and others bombed shitload of buildings. Can you please give me a single example where a building complex of similar size was hit with 50+ missiles?
>>
>>37584364
>Educate yourself.

wtf, literally on thursday the mainstream news outlets in finland reported that russians and syrians are evucuating bases
>>
>>37583932
.50 rubles are deposited to your account
>>
>>37584473
Destruction from blast waves is threshold-based. You're just going to get about the same level of destruction over and over again if you drop a bunch of warheads on the same spot.
>>
>>37584543
And? They suspected a strike was coming. Why wouldn't they evacuate likely targets.
You have nothing to support your position.
Fuckstick.
>>
>>37584524
Well you're making claim that they fired 76 missiles at a medium-size building complex.
I'm simply pointing out that seems kinda fishy, given the size of the object, the fact it looks like an ordinary concrete structure, and given what kind of damage 1000 lbs of explosive causes.
You didn't really correct me by offering some facts which would prove me wrong. All your contribution from the start of discussion was highly negative.
>>
>>37584335
They were bombing a fucking chemical weapons production facility. No shit they wanted to make sure it was all thoroughly destroyed and sterilized. Last thing they want is "Oh lol, the stupid Americans released a shitload of poison gas in Damascus by accident."
>>
>>37584358
They're usually repurposed anti-air warheads hence fragmentation, hence yes.

But that could be argued around as the Cruise missiles have a self-destruct device to prevent capture.

Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Even with a self-destruct function, some of the functions would have been disabled by the intercept. With a claim of something like 70 missiles shot down there should be something to recover.
>>
>>37584555
I understand and I didn't claim they would fire 76 Tomahawks at a single point.
But given the size of those buildings and the effects of 1000 lbs of HE, 76 seems like a huge overkill.
Not just that, I posted how detonations of 1000 lbs bombs looks like. 1000 lbs bombs aren't all HE. Tomahawk warhead is literally 1000 lbs of HE.
>>
>>37584577
I thought this was research facility, not production facility?
>>
>>37583967
If it makes you feel any better, the person you replied to is almost certainly a vatnik shill. They've been out in full force recently.
>>
>>37584591
The only reason to fire 76 missiles would be to overwhelm anti-missile defenses. Seeing that these defenses failed to materialize, it's entirely possible that the CO of this attack ordered the rest of the missiles to self-destruct once the targets were destroyed.
>>
>>37582710

> Only targeted 3 buildings
> Only hit 3 buildings

Sounds like you're just upset that we have precision military equipment while your designated country can't even figure out a way to gas people without getting caught
>>
>>37584537
It never happened because the US has never took on a IADN with just tomahawks. You can't say "this is impossible because the US never did it before". Failure and fallacious arguement, brainlet.
>>
>>37584612
Exactly, but even then 76 missiles looks like a huge overkill.
By the way, Russians claimed missiles were also fired on various airbases, and those were intercepted according to them.

Anyway, thank you for actually discussing, and not chimping out like a brain damaged monkey and calling me a Russian shill for questioning things.
>>
>>37584566
Yes. Because I'm not making any claim. You are. You are claiming it is fishy. You are basing this off absolutely nothing.
If you are making the claim (this is fishy) you need to explain how you reached that conclusion.
>>
>>37584645
>, but even then 76 missiles looks like a huge overkill.
Based on what? Your experience as a strike planner?
Or is it because you watched a YouTube video?
>>
>>37584497
So far is this is best evidence I've seen to support the western position. Of course, it is possible the wrecks or pieces, if recognizable, have not been found yet. We'll see in the coming days.
>>
>>37584645
>By the way, Russians claimed missiles were also fired on various airbases, and those were intercepted according to them.

They also have zero proof, proof which would be impossible to contain, nor any reason too.

A tomahawk who's engine failed last time was posted on Twitter before the smoke cleared on the airbase. That one landed in the middle of ass fuck nowhere.

No missiles were shot down, it's time to accept it.
>>
>>37584645

Well if you're going to shoot something with one missile, you may as well shoot it with 76.
>>
>>37584681
The Russian position is also psychotic and full of holes. Like them claiming there were B-1Bs dropping fucking GBU-38s during that strike.
>>
>>37584633
I didn't say that.
>IADN
They totally did, Yugoslavia, Iraq...many strikes were done with cruise missiles alone.
I never read or heard that some building was targeted with 70 fucking missiles.
>>37584657
I'm basing it on the following:
>damage caused by a 1000 lbs bomb (1000 lbs warhead would be even more destructive)
>size of the building complex
Thus, I'm questioning the claim they fired 76 missiles at a single building complex of that size. It looks awfully wasteful.
Of course, I could be wrong. You could point out the fact that would show I'm wrong. Poster/s above gave some explanations.
All you're doing is acting highly negative, that is questioning my evidence (which I never pretended was some crown evidence, I'm rather proposing stuff) and questioning my expertise (I never claimed I'm an expert).
Let's just end this futile exchange.
>>
>>37584703
Yugoslavia did not have an IADN, and Iraq was attacked by the airforce for weeks.

Stop fucking posting about shit you know nothing about.
>>
>>37584703
What you are doing is posting atop mount dunning kruger. You are annoying litterally the entire thread with your baseless and retarded opinions, hence the negative responses.
>>
>>37584703
You are the child trying to chime in at the adult table during Christmas dinner.

Fuck off child, you don't know shit.
>>
>>37582453
sauce for image?
>>
>>37584703
>You could point out the fact that would show I'm wrong
Why?
You are ignorant to this issue. You have watched a YouTube video and now think that you are educated enough to suspect something is fishy.
You have absolutely no knowledge in this area. You have no data to support you. You have nothing at all.
So yes. I'm negative toward you. I think you are ignorant in the extreme. Unlike you, however, I have something to support my assertion. Your previous posts.
If you manage to find someone who know what they are talking about to provide some evidence, then I'm going to side with the people who have the most to lose by lying.
And that's the Pentagon. If they are lying, all that needs to happen is one shot down tomahawk gets found. Then they would be discredited.

The Russians however, have nothing to lose by lying.

So find some evidence.
>>
>>37584745
>>37584786
This

Thanks for making those posts.
>>
>>37584786
>>37584757
>>37584745
I still don't see the reason to target three medium buildings with 76 missiles.
>ARE YOU A STRIKE PLANNER
No, but I still can't see why would you need 76,000 lbs of HE to level three medium sized buildings.
>And that's the Pentagon. If they are lying, all that needs to happen is one shot down tomahawk gets found. Then they would be discredited.
Perhaps it will be found and shown. Wait a few days.
And now you're making some sense. However, you could've said that from the start, instead of acting like an arrogant negative fuck since the beginning of discussion.
>>37584732
>Yugoslavia did not have an IADN
Yes it did.
>https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/kosovotactical%5B1%5D.pdf
>and Iraq was attacked by the airforce for weeks.
Many targets were attacked by cruise missiles from the start.
>>
Also, it's possible remains of intercepted missiles fell in remote or restricted areas.
>>
>>37583305

Yes! This! Thanks you!

This is just a very interesting event to soon how military equipment performs.
It's what this board is all about.

But so many of you nationalistic fucks just seem to be here to have a yelling contest over who's country is better.
As long as you realize how retarded you look.
>>
>>37584786
That last bit is a good point, though I still don't buy either side of the story. I think even if some downed tomahawks are found, no one is really going to care about or remember one small line from the pentagon's statements because the crux of the issue for the vast majority of people is that the targets were destroyed. It only really matters to people like me, because I'm less interested in the politics and more in the performance of the hardware.

For example, the public didn't give a shit that an AIM-9x failed to track that Syrian Su-22. Of course, no lied about that.
>>
>>37582453
'Merican sources are the most believable.

So probably very few if any, what systems do they have in the area that can even shoot them down?

Don't say S-300/S-400 those aren't used for the small missiles fired.
>>
>>37584915
>Yes it did.

You didn't read the report. I did a long time ago. They deintagrated it for survival. Page 33.

Fuck off.
>>
>>37582453
This whole missile talk is some shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic shit
>>
>>37584989
>'Merican sources are the most believable.
Since when?
>>
>>37584989
Pantsir should be capable, but who knows how many they had and where they were. Also the Kub could theoretically. S-125s and S-200s are old as dirt by now, so I doubt they would have been able to do it.
>>
>>37584948
>though I still don't buy either side of the story.

Being as all evidence points to the DOD being correct, and being as how you could not even get the number of missiles right, I would say that's logical; You being a shill and all.
>>
>>37584602
Why is US in Syria? Are they at war?
>>
>>37584989
>'Merican sources are the most believable.
>>
>>37585005
How does that term apply here? Some of us are just interested in the military hardware. This is /k/, after all.
>>
>>37584999
My point was they had IADS. What they did during the war with it is less relevant.
You failed to show me when did Americans ever shoot this many missiles at a target of this size.
>>
>>37582710
Complain to Mattis. They pushed for a limited strike. Trump wanted to give them a bloody nose.

But i still think it is notable that one of the targets was in Damascus. It wasn't a strike on some far away airfield.
>>
Can someone tell me how its legal to drop bombs on a country you're not at war with?
>>
>>37584497
That looks like a KH-101 judging by the wing placement.
>>
>>37585079
THINK OF THE CHILDREN
>>
>>37585030
The hell crawled up your ass? Right now I'm leaning towards the DoD being correct or mostly correct, based mostly on the absence of photos of destroyed tomahawk debris. I'm still not fully convinced, however (and neither should you). Also, where was I wrong about the missile count? And who exactly am I shilling for?
>>
>>37585079
It's absolutely not. This was an act of aggression according to international law. But so was Iraq and Yugoslavia.
>>
>>37585085
So.. uh.. carpet bomb mcdonalds corporate HQ?
>>
>>37585066
>they had an IADN
>but they didn't employ it

This does not help your assertion retard.

>You failed to show me
You fail to understand why this logic is 100% fallacious. JASSM-ER was also used for the first time. Guess that is a conspiracy too. Fucking moron.
>>
>>37585081
I honestly can't say if we're looking at the front or back anyway.
>>
>>37585099
>I'm still not fully convinced
You won't ever be, shill.

>when was I wrong
>"muh 100 missiles"

Inb4 Dat was not me.
>>
Why do arabs like chemical weapons so much?
>>
>>37585112
>This does not help your assertion retard.
Ugh, it does. It literally says so in the report that NATO did not expect Yugoslavs to act that way.
>You fail to understand why this logic is 100% fallacious. JASSM-ER was also used for the first time. Guess that is a conspiracy too. Fucking moron.
That has nothing to do with my point.
My point is that 76 missiles is too much for three medium buildings, even if they were facing IADS.
>>
>>37585132
Chlorine and mustard gas have been deployed mostly by major european powers by tonnage
>>
>>37585135
>It literally says so in the report that NATO did not expect Yugoslavs to act that way.
They also did not strike only with standoff munitions, just like Iraq. It's apples to oranges.

>My point is that 76 missiles is too much for three medium buildings, even if they were facing IADS.
Prove it.
>>
>>37585135
according to what metric?
forgive me if i take some random stranger on the internet's(who has already said he has no expertise in these things)opinion with a grain of salt simply because he doesn't "feel" like it would take 76 missiles
>>
>>37585147
fine; modern arabs.
>>
>>37585147
They also have fucking huge industrial bases compared to sand countries.
>>
>>37585079
because:
FUCK YOU USA!
and
FUCK YOU RUSSIA BTFO!

the constitution dies and we cheer it on to the chorus of "if you are not whit us, you are with baby killing nazi aSSad and putin!"
>>
>>37584453
Holy shit dude, can you seriously not see how ridiculous you sound when you say that?
>>
>>37585157
Point is SOME targets were struck with standoff munitions only, even at the start of the air campaign.
Now show me a single target of similar size that was struck with so many missiles.
>>37585160
According to ''metric'' that they never used so many missiles to strike some target before.
Fuck, it's not Americans, but Israelis struck a fucking nuclear reactor complex with merely 16 2000 lbs bombs.
This was an (according to some, abandoned) chemical research center. 76 missiles looks like an insane overkill.
>>
File: SyrianCM.png (1.08 MB, 686x960)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB PNG
I'm guessing this thread is probably the best place to ask this. This photo has also been going around, claiming it's one of the cruise missiles they shot down. Is this a Russian AA6 Acrid?

I'm not 100% sure.
>>
>>37585128
Lol, for whom am I shilling?

I did say 100 missiles, and you know what? I was wrong; it was 105, though the number varies according to different sources. But I think what you failed to understand is that I was talking about all of the missiles fired collectively, not against one target. That would be the different poster.
>>
File: AA6Acrid.png (676 KB, 952x617)
676 KB
676 KB PNG
>>37585245
>>
>>37585245
It's an R40 missile that was never fired
>>
>>37585245
Don't know what it is, but it doesn't resemble in the slightest any of the missiles fired by western forces.
>>
>>37585233>>37585233
>>37585233
classic obfuscation without any evidence to prove his point, would advise all other posters in this thread to just ignore this little shit
>>
>>37585121
It looks like the wings aren't centered on the body which makes me think it's an old KH, maybe a 55? Not centered referring to top/bottom. Hard to tell since there's no reference for size of it's even a cruise module though.
>>
>>37585282
I'm literally ASKING for someone to show me Americans firing this many missiles at a similar target before in Iraq or Yugoslavia.
Why the fuck is this obfuscation?
>>
>>37585245
>remove before flight cone still on it

That's an AA-11 nigga, way too small to be a tomahawk
>>
>>37585233
It wasn't a particularly large complex. The building was 23x33 meters.

And "merely" seems like an odd word. You're comparing ~17 tons of explosives (the official number) to ~38 tons of explosives in the US strike. Considering the Israelis delivered a it in the package of larger bombs which will have a larger effect it really doesn't seem all that weird.
>>
>>37585296
The calculus is different if you have hundreds or thousands of targets. In that case you would spread the missiles available around.
>>
>>37585296
Because this is a relatively unprecedented situation of "We need to drop a shitload of firepower here but aren't allowed politically to take out SAM sites to make our job easier."
>>
>>37585041
Is Colin Powell in government still?

No? Then fuck off.
>>
>>37585233
>Point is SOME targets were struck with standoff munitions only,
No, they were supported all the way in, either by stealth assets striking C4 targets or escorted by EW assets.

You know, for perportedly just wanting to know about the assets, you sure don't know shit about assets in general.
>>
>>37585347
It wasn't large but it was an incredibly important target, and it was important to blast the hell out of it because if they failed Iraqis might've put up more defenses around it.
>>37585348
There were still highly important targets. Let's consider this (again, according to some abandoned) chemical research facility as highly important.
>>37585376
Okay.
I also agree with the other guy who said that it would be kinda dumb for Americans to lie because if they found out that one Tomahawk was shot down, they would be busted.
BUT, how is it possible that this dreaded IADS, which had to be saturated with 76 missiles for a single target, failed to shoot down a single missile?
That's also kinda weird, isn't it, even if you take into account traditional Arab incompetence.
>>
>>37585255
>I was wrong; it was 105

Jesus fucking christ. It was 76. You God damn shill, poison the well as we speak. I'm just going to start marking your posts.
>>
>>37585326
It's also clearly not an AA-11.
>>37585261
Has probably has it right.
>>
>>37585233
>76 missiles looks like an insane overkill.

Turns out the AA wasn't as good as the Pentagon thought it'd be.
>>
>>37585426
Shill post: poisoning the well with misinfo.


Do NOT reply. Do NOT reply.
>>
>>37585439
You are right. He is either a shill or clinically retarded with an inability to learn. Either way, I'm done with him.
>>
>>37585439
I'm not the same guy you idiot.
>>37585436
But it's so bad they failed to shoot down a single fucking missile?
Both aspects of this story seem fishy as fuck to me.
>>
>>37585426
If the Russians had provided radar information for Syrian AA operators they may have been more effective. Based on what we know this is likely not the case. The Syrians were taken completely by surprise and had little opportunity to fire much of anything.
>>
>>37585472
Shill post: sock puppet and playing a questioning "moderate".

Do NOT reply. Do NOT reply.
>>
>>37585245
It looks like an 3M9 missile, usually fired from pic related. They're only rated for aircraft though so they could have been fired as part of the propaganda fireworks. The Syrians are likely going to phase out their cold war era tech for shitloads of new weapons provided by Russia and China so why not put old stock to some use.
>Inb4 could use them against coalition or Israeli craft
Even the Syrians know that the odds of shooting down a modern NATO tech fighter with advanced countermeasures using 1960's and 1970's era tech is slim to none
>>
>>37585428
I'm not talking about that one target, you idiot. There were three! Practice some reading comprehension, holy shit!
>>
>>37585485
None of the SAMs that Syria has are capable of cooperative engagement though
>>
>>37585464
That was his plan all along.
>>
File: kub_sa_6_gainful.jpg (103 KB, 1024x722)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>37585498
Whoops! Forgot pic!
>>
>>37585515
He absolutely failed to push his point or create uncertainty. Worse, he has been outed as a shill.

He did not just fail, he actively hurt his cause.
>>
>US minding its own business making dictators to protect its interests
>some former goodboi sandnigger does some dumb shit because CIA hasn't been able to properly do their job for a while
>Everybody who is happy to take our money and enjoy the stable status quo we created while shitting on us constantly screams "ahmagad Merica enforce international law for us again so we can avoid accountability and blame everything on you if things go tits up!!!!"
>herewegoagain.jpg
>Russia is in the middle, so now its just a PR issue
>start public psing contest so both side can come out on top
>"omagad we're totally gonna bomb these totally significant facilities please dont totally evacuate them and relocate everything important!!!"
>We fire a bunch of guided munitions to shut up the faggy hippies and continue MERICA STRONK image
>Vlad says he shot them all down so he can maintain image
>wostboi dictator gets a slap on the wrist but doesn't get dead because nobody wants to spend the money to clean up power vacuum chaos
>Maufacturer stock jumps a bit as they get contracts to build new guidance systems for new missiles
>American investor class makes money from taxes of chestbeating clueless working class again
>world keeps spinning as normal

Business as usual folks, nothing to see here, we'll do it all again in a year I'm sure
>>
>>37585490
Based Guardian of Zion!
>>
>>37585554
Who would win?
>A state of the art multilayered integrated air defence network capable of engaging low flying cruise missiles at 400km backed up by a depreciated but still deadly export multilayered integrated air defence system both of which were said to be active and in use to defend their land and both including state of the art pantsir system that is specifically designed to kill missiles and bombs in SHORAD

Vs

>A few flying boi's
>>
>all these gullible retards believing what the MSM tells them
I feel bad to be an american. No wonder the rest of the world always makes fun of us.
>>
>>37583967
Hey guys we are winning the civil war and now we have Russia here to help.
Wait I know, we'll use internationally disapproved chemical weapons, im sure no one will notice.
After the first shitstorm surrounding chemical weapons I really dont think Assad is stupid enough to just throw down some sarin to increase his effeciency.

No one talks about the fact that the US practically handed Iraq chemical weapons for use in the Iran Iraq war. Yet here they are standing on their podium.
Talking down to Syria and its allies, Iran being an ally that has died at the hands of American sponsored chemical attacks.
>>
>>37585326
Definitely not AA-11, everything about that is off. Also that's the tail end of the missile. See the motors on the side? Likelihood of AA-6 is darn near 100%
>>
>>37584686
This. After the amount of publicity given last time to the single malfunctioning tomohawk, you’re gonna tell me that Assad can’t find a SINGLE cruise missile to rub in Trump’s fat face?
>>
>>37585604
> A few flying boi's

Yeah but they're new and fast and smarter than the average missile and can hit a pickinit basket from over 100,000 milliliters away
>>
File: R-40.jpg (61 KB, 800x552)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>37585326
also just because it's painted red doesn't mean remove before flight. Look closely. Also notice in the other images it is bolted on to the weapon.
>>
>>37585612
Yes, is as frustrating as 4th strike in the baseball game, my fellow American!
>>
>>37585615
bad reasoning, the whole mantra behind the use of chemical weapons,in this case, is that it will make the opposite side more likely to surrender instead of seeing their families,friends and themselves die chemical and nerve agents. Assad will win, but it will be at least 5 years before he has taken all of the rebel territory.
him using chemical weapons to speed up the process winning the war isnt a massive jump, especially given that they've used them before
>>
>>37585676
But comrade american, is 3 strikes and you out not 4
>>
>>37585668
woops got that wrong, is indeed a tail cover
>>
>>37582453
Tomahawks aren't all that advanced or fast. They're small by missile standards. You have to understand that Tomahawks were specifically chosen for this attack because of their comparatively low payload compared to other larger and more complicated ballistic missiles. While most people aren't keen to think of a "small" bomb as a scalpel that is essentially what happened here: They launched a shitload of scalpels to make precise strikes. They could have a bigger, nastier missiles but they'd have blown up half of Damascus and nobody's interested in that.
>>
>>37585693
Im a little shaky on the first attack but iirc it was never empirically proven assad actually did it.

The stakes are too high. Surely Assad realises he risks a full scale war by doing this.
It all seems too convenient for America who has been waiting around for some kind of justification for further involvement.
At this later stage in the war, some of the chemical weapons in Syria could be controlled by rebel forces.
This has false flag written all over it, or atleast rebels using chemical weapons in the hopes that foreign aid will come.
>>
File: 0000.jpg (9 KB, 159x199)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>37585400
>Is Colin Powell in government still?
>No? Then fuck off.

wtf retard punishment for conspiracy against peace is death by hanging, not being sent to retirement!!
>>
>>37585693
>especially given that they've used them before

Yeah, and the worst he ever got then was a light slap on the wrist. So nobody that matters seemed to give that much of a damn either way, and nowadays he's got Putin to cover for him if anyone does raise a stink about it. So he had reason to believe it was safe to keep gassing.
>>
>>37585759
>At this later stage in the war, some of the chemical weapons in Syria could be controlled by rebel forces.
Exactly why tons of people want proof but the US doesn't have any. Millions of morons will easily take Mattis' word and the bullshit claims that only Assad can deploy barrel bombs from helicopters. This entire thing has been a shit show, mainly because we're punishing Assad for what could very likely be ISIS' shit.
>>
>>37583053
Hezbollah did nothing wrong, Chaim. Keep your big fucking nose out of Lebanon.
>>
>>37585777
>ISIS uses the US to destabilize Syria and regain a foothold
>9/11 2.0 happens
Why does America always cause all the problems it has
>>
>>37585803
ITT: People think ISIS can't afford helicopters or chlorine gas easily manufactured in massive quantities with technology from 100 years ago.
>>
>>37585759
>>37585759
>At this later stage in the war, some of the chemical weapons in Syria could be controlled by rebel forces.
except we've never seen any proof of these rebel factions possessing chemical weapons, or the knowhow to produce and deploy them

we do however know that the syrian government did have chemical weapons as far back as 2012(when they publically acknowledged it) and the capability to deploy them.
>>
>>37585630
>pic
>>
>>37585834
>ITT:
Huh, weird. That's not supposed to be there.
>>
>>37585803
Claiming that the US has benifited from ISIS is bullshit, they took large portions of the rebellions resources, areas and manpower and made no secret that they will take over the rest as well. It split the rebellion and took a lot of its power.
>>
>>37585834
huh, last time i checked isis was several hundred miles from duma.
desu if they can get there with their helicopters at this point in the war, kudos to them the crazy bastards
>>
>>37585861
Good thing thats not what I was saying.
>>
>>37585876
/sg/ and vatniks are inable to seperate or distinguish any groups in syria, so they just started to call everyone ISIS. You can see this happening a lot, pretty funny tho when one of the "ISIS"'s starts to fight with ISIS, confuses the hell out of them.
>>
>>37585861
>they took large portions of the rebellions resources
Something the US government and alphabet agencies don't give a shit about. As long as their guns and resources are fighting Assad they don't care who has them. That should have been apparent enough from the fact that the "rebellion" is a drug cartel formerly referenced as Al Qaeda.
>areas and manpower and made no secret that they will take over the rest as well
Justifies interventionist policy in the region and the continued destruction of semi-secular and stable governments in the middle east. Iran's next.
>It split the rebellion and took a lot of its power.
Working as intended.
>>37585876
All they have to do is fly under the radar. You'd never know they were there. Think about all the former Iraqi military pilots. It's not outside the realm of reason.
>>
File: 1276875403282.png (3 KB, 279x237)
3 KB
3 KB PNG
>>37585834
>helicopters [..] easily manufactured in massive quantities with technology from 100 years ago.
>>
>>37585910
>Something the US government and alphabet agencies don't give a shit about.
More like shills are even after all trying to force this picture. Pathetic.
>>
>>37585428
No response from you to my post? This one:
>>37585499
Is it because you realized that you were wrong, that you can't read, or that you don't understand how many people you were arguing with?
>>
>>37585910
>Iran's next.

Good, I hope mattis himself sticks his dick into Khamenei.
>>
File: Pushkin_2001_32.jpg (391 KB, 1417x813)
391 KB
391 KB JPG
>>37585245
That's R-40, even the cone is similar.
Used by Mig-25P interceptors.
Syrian army has a couple of them.
Looks legit.
>>
>>37585922
>look mom i removed part of the subject in phrase and suddenly it stopped making sense
>>
>P...pls respond.
Desperate shill is desperate. Shit is hilarious. Watch as he begs like a cuck again.
>>
>>37585933
Which does raise some interesting questions.
>>
>>37585834
Artillery deployment better than helo, also ISIS has a ton of american built heavy artillery
>>
>>37585957
Like what, for example?
>>
>>37585925
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-is-eating-us-syrian-rebels-are-losing-out-to-extremists/2017/02/23/f9c6d1d4-f885-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.abadbb4417b8
ayyy lmao
>>
>>37583613
this. still.
>>
>>37585948
I've been successfully trolled. Kudos.
>>
>>37585971
Why was it dumped? Was it dumped or was the fighter shot down? If it was shot down, did friendly AA get it or something else? If it was dumped, why was it dumped? Engine failure, or was it running (which mig-25s are excellent at). If it was running what from?

That's just a few.
>>
>>37585759
You're acting as if this was the first time Assad used chemical weapons since back when he was supposed to have given up on them. That's not the case, we've gotten solid reports every now and then of him gassing his people. So this wasn't some bold new move on his part that gave the US the justification to strike just when Trump wanted it. This was him doing the same shit over and over again and expecting the same result. But this time Trump's magic 8-ball said "Go bomb some shit" instead of "Kiss Vlad's ass", so Donald picked up the excuse that had been lying there all time along and sent the missiles flying.

>At this later stage in the war, some of the chemical weapons in Syria could be controlled by rebel forces.
At this late stage, when the rebels have been pushed back a lot?
>>
>>37586005
>why was it dumped
So the SAA could try to save face by posing for pictures in front of a downed "cruise missile" that looks nothing like anything that was fired at them.
>>
>>37585839
>we do however know that the syrian government did have chemical weapons as far back as 2012
As does the US military. Doesnt prove they did it.
Both chemical attacks served as justification for American involvement.
Which at present they do not have. Russia has every right to be flying aircraft in Syrian airspace.
The US has none. With the whole world watching I still reiterate it just seems plain dumb for Assad to do it.
Im not saying he didnt, it just seems all to convenient.

As for rebels deploying these weapons; if the rebels do have control over chemical weapons, they havent had control over them for very long at an absolute maximum the length of the Syrian War.
Id hardly call it an accurate assessment to say we havent seen them deploy it thus they dont have the capacity.
Its not something you can accurately put on paper in this timescale. Had these groups existed and been major players for 100 years then we could.
Plus what non isis rebels remain know that old america will bomb them into the stone age if they do.
And if it was isis then the same really goes. After the heavy bombing theyve faced at coalition hands id hardly expect them to try their luck with american bombers after they let off some chemical weapons.
>>
>>37584915
>However, you could've said that from the start, instead of acting like an arrogant negative fuck since the beginning of discussion.
I am arrogant towards people of contemptible intellectual capacity.
>>
>>37586029
Doubtful. Well, maybe not doubtful, but highly unlikely. That would require them to have a 25 in place with said missile while the attack was going on.

That missile, Imo, was dumped for a reason.
>>
>>37586018
>At this late stage, when the rebels have been pushed back a lot?
In a war there are losses and gains of territory. Potential losses of chemical weapons at one of these points. If they had been secured at any point they would have been moved away from the front.
>>
>>37585976
This is not contradicting what i said, somewhat it is the opposite.
>>
>>37586018
>At this late stage, when the rebels have been pushed back a lot?
Here, I'll save you some trouble:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/isis-weapons-arsenal-included-some-purchased-u-s-government-n829201
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/14/u-s-bought-weapons-syrian-rebels-and-some-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-lost-track-nearly-1000000000-arms-sent-iraq-20837
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/624921/Britain-helped-arm-ISIS-giving-Iraq-weapons

Assuming that even 50% of this shit was recovered is a tremendous mistake. Some portion of it was definitely slid onto the international arms market. There's even nastier shit that went missing like nuclear material, which is went missing before:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Iran-says-nuclear-material-stolen-could-yield-dirty-bomb-473776

The idea of ISIS or other criminal organizations having shitloads of western munitions is only the tip of the iceberg. We need to consider the very real possibility that they are capable of NBC attacks.
>>
>>37586005
It is war dofus, a lot of their bases were destroyed or raided, lot of the stuff is disfunctional or need heavy overhauling. It rather raises the question, why you are not able to come to such a simple solution by yourself.
>>
>>37586037
>Both chemical attacks served as justification for American involvement.
>Which at present they do not have.
That chemical weapons would be justification while, say, starving out and terror bombing civilians isn't is purely because the US itself has chosen to treat them that way.

>I still reiterate it just seems plain dumb for Assad to do it.
Yeah, doing what he's gotten away with time and time again one more time is really fucking stupid all right. He had to know that this time would be different!

>Both chemical attacks served as justification for American involvement.
Plenty of attacks weren't used by the US as justification. So this idea that you get an attack right when the US wants one is complete bullshit. There are chemical attacks every now and then, but without the Pentagon PR department getting in on it you don't hear quite as much about them, both because of the PR push and because without the US strike there isn't that much news value in them any more.

And as far as justification goes, there's no international law that says people can go in with strikes like this when chemical weapons are used. The US and friends are making their own rules here (somewhat understandable given that Russia will veto anything you try putting through the UN, aka the proper channel), and as such it's purely the US own decision to consider this chemical warfare attack as sufficient justification while the previous ones weren't, or for that matter things like starving and terror bombing civilians, systematic attacks on hospitals, etc.

This chemical weapon attack doidn't pop up right when Trump needed one, it was just the latest in a long string of them, and even if Assad had never used chemical warfare at all the US could simply have decided that the shit he did do was cause enough instead since they arne't playing by the rulebook anyway.
>>
>>37586037
There's just too many different ways to look at it.

Option 1: Syria did this without Russian knowledge, for which Putin would be a little pissed off. This would make Assad a plain idiot. Cruel asshole? Sure, but I don't think he's an idiot, but maybe he really is.

Option 2: Syria knew attacks would be incoming if they used it, but calculated that this was an acceptable loss because it would rally his populace even more against America, who would be seen as the aggressor. Can't see this being too viable. America is already the bogeyman over there.

Option 3: Putin allowed Assad to do it because it would bolster Trump's approval rating ahead of the mid-terms. Collusion or no, Putin wants Trump in power, and this gave him the opportunity to paint Putin as a monster and divert attention away from the notion that they are might be friends. Whereas, Putin doesn't care about his international reputation and his own media can easily spin the story to his populace (not our fault, it was staged, we shot down most of the missiles, etc...). Meanwhile, Assad incurs minimal losses. Everybody wins.

Option 4: Putin is evil; Assad is evil; evil people do evil things regardless of the consequences. America is the good guy. We punished the bad guys. This is one by far the most far-fetched. I don't know about Assad, but Putin is most certainly not an idiot.
>>
>>37586206
>Yeah, doing what he's gotten away with time and time again one more time is really fucking stupid all right. He had to know that this time would be different!
You must have a short memory. The last tomahawk strike was a response to chemical attacks as well.
>>
>>37586174
This is option 5 I forgot to mention: the chemical attack was caused by a third part and Assad/Putin really are innocent... Having a hard time believing it, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, I suppose.
>>
>>37586209
Your dismissal of option 2 is weak.
The did it to capture the city, and calculated that whatever cost the US made him pay would be worth the capture of the city.
>>
>>37586209
Option 5: A subordinate of Assad who hates the rebel enough did it without Assads approval, hoping he could get away with it, keep in mind this aint the first chemical attack and only one got real retaliations, while most of times it was enough to point fingers at the rebels. And lets be honest unless there are consequnces, Assad and Russia doesnt really give a fuck.
>>
>>37586174
So trying to pin this on the Brits turned out to be too stupid even for Igor "Syrian Sergei" Konashenkov to keep repeating with a straight face, so now we're back to the usual of everyone in Syria who doens't love Assad being ISIS members and everythign that's wrong about the place being their fault?
>>
>>37586268
So you think that Assad, who is having to fight rebels now, would tolerate someone in his military who conducts WMD strikes without authority?
Really?
>>
>>37586182
>lot of the stuff is disfunctional or need heavy overhauling.
Having missiles fall off the rail is an extremely rare event. For it to happen conveniently when shit is going down would be one hell of a conisidence.

>why didn't you come to this conclusion
I did, I gave the possibility of it being dumped due to malfunction.
>>
>>37582455
>>37583844
>/k/ is a board devoted to weapons and military equipment

KYS
>>
>>37582880
IGNORE SHILLS

SAGE SHILL POSTS

IGNORE RUSSIAN POSTS

IGNORE RUSSIAN POSTERS
>>
>>37586295
Stop playing so stupid, it starts to looks ridiculous.

>>37586293
Why not? Assad is Russia's and Iran's bitch by now and everyone is doing their own thing. You confuse this with a western country, this is the middle east, generals and the likes are often local power forces, even more so in war times that go on for this long.
>>
>>37586268
>A subordinate of Assad

winner winner chicken dinner. Assad doesnt have full control of "his" military. This explanation doesnt require any conspiracy theories or political machinations, it only requires incompetence and bitterness of combatants in the field. This would be par for the course in the syrian conflict. Occams razor dictates that this is much more likely than anything else.
>>
>>37586343
>Stop playing so stupid
But I already preemptively agreed with you? So you are also as stupid as me?
>>
>>37586277
>so now we're back to the usual of everyone in Syria who doens't love Assad being ISIS members and everythign that's wrong about the place being their fault?
You're dismissing this concept much too quickly. I want you to take a step back and look at this situation objectively for a moment. Let's assume that Russia didn't force Assad to remove his chemical weapons and Assad has, in fact, been developing, manufacturing, and stockpiling chemical weapons. So now we have hypothetical chemical weapons depots right?

So let's say these hypothetical chemical weapons depots were placed away from major civilian centers, or maybe under existing military bases. Who can say if the rebels, or ISIS, or god knows who else got their dirty fucking mitts on this shit. So now we have a hypothetically chemical capable ISIS.

But the ride doesn't stop there. What if ISIS, in some fit of clarity, sold those weapons to someone else? Or shipped them to Europe for later usage? What if they just keep them in a hole somewhere for use as a terrorist deterrent or killswitch?

This might sound like some shit out of James Bond or something and that's exactly why it shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.
>>
>>37586343
No. I'm assuming that the guy who is desperately trying to hold onto his nation will not tolerate generals who dont bother to obey order
>>
>>37586374
So it is technically impossible for failed and broken stuff to lay around? Or what? Look at >>37585245
There are two of those, why should it not be dumped stuff or stuff that got destroyed through an airstrike or whatever.
>>
>>37586396
>There are two of those
Boi. You call somebody retarded you best be damn sure you got your facts straight.
>>
>>37586382
That doesnt matter, he also has no interest on being so dependent on other countries as Russia and Iran, still it is happening. He cant also start fighting with his own generals at this moment.
>>
>>37586264
That's a fair point, but it seems a bit more risky than capturing it conventionally. I'm not sure he could adequately predict the extent of US retaliation, though perhaps Putin could. In the end, it worked out. Was Douma really such an important asset?
>>
>>37586440
Okay, now for the extra stupid:
1.The red cap isnt the tip of the missle.
2.Both missle parts have intakes.
This is only possible if those are two missles and not one.

Look at the picture in >>37585933 (you literally have seen this picture since you are linking your post to it)

Yes, it would be more than appropriate by now to say, that you are sorry for being so obviously wrong and wasting everyones time with your lack of knowlodge and wrong made assumptions.
>>
>>37586268
I'm less inclined to believe this one. If there is one thing Assad would ensure he controls, it would be the manufacture and distribution of nerve agents. He wouldn't hand it out lightly to someone he isn't sure he could trust, unless some previously trusted general basically turned on him. That general would have known there would be consequences to make such a move without his or Russia's approval. If Assad couldn't disappear him, the Russians certainly could do it for him. They tend to be good at that kind of thing,
>>
>>37586500
Just to get this straight: The "intakes" are rocket exausts, just calling them that, since they look like intakes and has been described as such by people claiming it is a cruise missle.
>>
>>37586500
>Both missle parts have intakes.
>intakes

BOI
>>
>>37586530
>grasping every straw possible
It was so obvious that you would go for it, hence my post here >>37586525

It just adds to the last part of my post.
>>
>>37586540
How long is am R-40,boi.
>>
>>37586525
>>37586540
>makes a mistake
>damage controls
I shall call you, glass house anon.
>>
>>37586558
>Quick i must change the topic after i have been proven wrong and shown that my next desperate move was obvious.
Waiting for your appology, my stupid friend. But bet you dont have the guts to actually do it, best what we can see from you is a short consequenceless mumbling, only done so you could continue with your garbage.
>>
>>37586584
It's the same topic, but that one simple fact blows you the fuck out.

Also, one of those things is not like the other...
>>
>>37586440
Have you ever seen a missile with two outlets like those on the front and back of a missile? Don't be an idiot.
>>
>>37586579
The difference is that it aint a vital mistake, it still shows that those are two missles and it was even corrected before your post. Geez, must suck to get BTFO so hard.
>>
>>37586597
So you are literally saying this was one missile? Even though the rocket exaust parts are the same and the front of the missle easily could have been removed, hence your pathetic length try?
>>
>>37586642
>So you are literally saying this was one missile?
Nope, and i never did.

>rocket exhaust parts are the same
BOI.
>>
>>37586707
>Nope, and i never did.

>>There are two of those
>Boi. You call somebody retarded you best be damn sure you got your facts straight.

>>rocket exhaust parts are the same
>BOI.
By now BOI only can be assumed to be your word for getting yourself BTFO.

It is always so funny, when the vatniks enter their terminal denial phase, they really think shitposting is arguing and repeating stuff without any explanation shows someone.
>>
File: 4683634.jpg (155 KB, 744x478)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
Was this already posted?

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5131781

It's the stats about interception attempts. Source is russian MoD.

>Syrian AA fired 112 missiles.
>Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired, 23 targets hit
>Buk: 29 fired, 24 hits
>Osa: 11 fired, 5 hits
>S-125: 13 fired, 5 hits
>Strela-10: 5 fired, 3 hits
>Kvadrat: 21 fired, 11 hits
>S-200: 8 fired, 0 hits

The guy says the S-200 perfs are unsurprisingly bad becaue it was designed to intercept aircraft primarily.
>>
>>37586901
Also, forgot this:

>Duvali airfield was targeted by 4 missiles, all shot down
>Dumayr airfield: 12 missiles, all shot down
>Bley airfield: 18 missiles, all shot down
>Shayrat airfield: 12 missiles, all shot down
>T-4: 2 missiles, all shot down
>Medze airfield: 9 missiles, 5 shot down
>Homs airfield: 16 missiles, 13 shot down
>Scientific targets in Barza and Djaraman: 30 missiles, only 5 shot down


Пoдpoбнee нa TACC:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5131781
>>
>>37586901
>>37586966

>all these hits
>zero wreckage
Makes me think.
>>
>>37587103
Stop being retarded please.

>150 missiles fired
>3 tiny buildings destroyed
>Makes me think.
This stupidity can work both ways.
>>
>>37587162
Nah, you are pretty much alone with that.

t. other anon
>>
>>37587162
Pfffttthahahahhahahahahahahhahah. The Pentagon said they launched 76 against one of those building complexes alone. Not a single Tomahawk part has been found anywhere in Syria after these events.

Pretty easy to guess who is lying here.
>>
>>37587223
It's easy to see to me that there's not enough information anyway.

100% interception rate is bullshit. 0 interceptions is bullshit too. But now at least there's an actual source that isn't just random tweets.
Take it as you want: as a vatnik, as a shartnik or you can take it as an actual /k/ user and not a low-iq poltard.
>>
>>37587260
>. 0 interceptions is bullshit too.
Nope. it would be insanely easy to prove otherwise yet the pentagon still sticks by its word. 0 proof has come out about down missiles.

It's time to face facts.
>>
>>37587296
ok
>>
>>37587337
It's just pure logic anon.
>>
>>37587351
I dont think, he is really familiar with that concept.
>>
>>37587403
Is that comma intentional or not
>>
>>37587439
Is the missing question mark?
>>
>>37587447
I keep getting the same complaint and I don't get what the fuck is wrong with you, fuckers. You can ask a question without a question mark and it would still be a question because of a sentence structuring. You cannot mistake it for anything else, because it is grammatically correct. However, an unintentional comma completely reverses the meaning of the sentence. Completely different concepts.
>>
>>37587495
>I can make mistakes but you cannot!!
Not even that guy.
>>
>>37587495
It sounds more like, you had been BTFO through this whole thread and now your are desperately trying to get a even the tiniest foothold , no matter what, nothing is too pathetic or irrelevant for this cause. Just saying.
>>
>>37587516
It is probaly the story of his life.
>>
>>37582453
>General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that Russian guns and missiles remained silent during the US, UK, and French strikes. Dunford said the only response came from the Syrian military firing surface-to-air missiles after the attack — to no effect.

>The US maintains that Syria fired their missiles after the attack had ended, possibly in an attempt to save face.

>"Most of the launches occurred after our strike was over," US Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, the Joint Staff director, said of Syria's interceptor fires.

source business insider.
>>
>>37584536
This friends is a man taking the bait
>>
>>37587821
More like talking the truth, russians are making WW3 look reasonable against them.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.