Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Syrian tanks at war. Some pictures and words between them.


Recommended Posts

This is a big post about Syrian tanks in Syrian conflict. So prepare for words, but to make it easier i will add some pictures, because words are hard in 21st century.






   Syrian war is going on for 4-5 years, with high amount of videocameras recording combat inside of this torn country. It is very easy to find them on Youtube, with any sorts of action in it - explosions, destruction and death.


Source: http://spioenkop.blogspot.de/2014/12/syrias-steel-beasts-t-72.html


   In this thread I will look at part of this conflict - how tanks perform in this war, how and why they are used by Syrian Arab Army (SAA). 




   T-72 and T-55s are most popular/most used tanks by SAA. They are a backbone of armored forces of SAA, fighting in different enviroments from cities in deserts to snowy peaks mountains.




   it is believed that Syria operated around 1500 T-72s before conflict started, but only about 700 T-72s could have been confirmed through official weapon deals, Syria received them in three batches. The first batch consisted of around 150 T-72 'Urals' ordered from the Soviet Union and delivered in the late 70s, a total of 300 T-72As delivered in 1982 make up the second batch and an order for 252 T-72M1s placed in Czechoslovakia was only partially completed when the country was separated into two. While 194 examples were already delivered by Czechoslovakia in 1992, the order was continued by Slovakia and the remaining 58 T-72M1s were delivered in 1993. Around 300 T-72s are still believed to be operated by mainly the Republican Guard and the Syrian Arab Army's elite 4th armoured division.




   Syria received the first of a total of 300 T-72As in 1982. What makes Syria receiving this tank so special is that the T-72A was never cleared for export by the Soviet Union, with even the most trusted Warsaw Pact countries receiving T-72M1 instead. The first country outside the former Soviet Union to receive T-72As was Hungary in 1996, which acquired them from Belarus 14 years after Syria received theirs! 



T-72A with ERA (T-72AV) preparing for attack through next street.




   Syrian T-72As are rumored to be delivered directly from Soviet Army stocks. In Syria, these tanks became known as T-82s, with 82 referring to the year of delivery. The use of this designation continues even today, and neither T-72A nor T-72AV was ever used to refer to this tank in Syria. All of Syria's T-72As were later upgraded to AV standard, aimed at increasing the T-72A's protection against RPGs by mounting the Kontakt-1 ERA. Opposed to the T-55MV upgrade, which happened in the Ukraine, the upgrading of the T-72As took place in Syria. The Kontakt-1 ERA was bought from one of the former Soviet Republics (possibly Ukraine, again) and was supposedly installed by Armenian contractors.

   The 300 T-72AVs were split between the Republican Guard and the 4th armoured division. The T-72s operated by the Republican Guard were always seen in a desert livery, while the T-72s of the 4th armoured division were usually painted green, which operated alongside a limited amount of "desert" T-72s. 




   Numerous BREM-1 armoured recovery vehicles were also acquired mainly for the Republican Guard, and all remain in widespread use today.





This BREM just seconds ago pulled this T-72AV out of fire, after it was damaged. Officer is helping with second cable.




   The 252 T-72M1s were the latest additon to the Syrian tank fleet, and although inferior to the T-72AVs, they are Syria's most newest tanks, having rolled out of the factory over ten years later than Syria's T-72AVs. As most were delivered in 1992, they are sometimes referred to as T-92s by Syrians. Yet the original designation of T-72M1 also remains in use in Syria, resulting in some confusion around the Syrian designation system. To add to all the confusion, the T-72 'Ural' is also believed to have acquired an indigenous name, which would likely be T-79.



Lower frontal plate penetration with RPG, launched from basement. Driver died.

   A large part of the T-72M1 fleet was originally slated to be upgraded to what was believed to be T-72M1M standard by Russia at the start at this decade. However, this plan was abandoned after the start of the Civil War alongside several other ambitious modernisation programmes for the Syrian military.
Sniper bullet kicks dust from T-72 turret roof, just near commander's open hatch.
   In agreement with Galileo Avionica of Italy, 122 T-72s were upgraded with the TURMS-T (Tank Universal Reconfiguration Modular System T-series) fire-control system (FCS) between 2003 and 2006. TURMS-T were mounted on T-72 Ural, T-72M1s and T-72AVs.
   All the TURMS-T equipped tanks in Syria got the 'S' added to their designation, resulting in T-79S/T-72S, T-82S/T-72 AVS and T-92S/T-72M1S. While this may seem confusing at first hand, the 'S' stands for Saroukh (صاروخ) meaning missile, indicating all are capable of launching the 9M119(M) guided anti-tank missile through their barrel. 1500 of such missiles were believed to have been acquired in 2005.
   Of the once 122 strong TURMS-T fleet, some one hundred still remain in service. As these tanks are by far the most modern examples found in Syria, most are held back on Mount Qasioun near Damascus, the Republican Guard's base. Some of the T-72M1s equipped with the panoramic sight were tasked to monitor rebel activity in the villages around Mount Qasioun.
   The T-72 has meanwhile seen use on every front. Deir ez-Zor, previously only home to T-55s, saw numerous T-72s operating here because of the arrival of the Republican Guard's 104th brigade. Some TURMS-T equipped T-72AVs are now also attached to Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons), and saw use against the Islamic State near the Shaer gas field.
T-72 in Daraya.
   A limited number of T-72s also operate around Aleppo. All of these belong to the 4th armoured division and operate alongside BREM-1 ARVs. They mainly operated around the neigbourhood of Al-Layramoun in late 2013. Due to their heavy usage, many T-72AVs were soon left without their Kontakt-1 covered side skirts. Side skirts mounting joints are week part of side protection, after being hit a part of side skirts just fall off.
    Various other groups also continue to operate the T-72, of which the Islamic State is by far the largest operator with thirteen T-72 "Ural" and six T-72AVs in operation. Six T-72 Urals and three T-72AVs joined the ranks of the Islamic State after Liwa Dawood, the largest operator of tanks of all the rebels at the time, defected to the Islamic State.
   Liwa Dawood is claimed to have the dubious honour of participating in Syria's second tank duel, footage of which can be seen here. The duel resulted in the complete destruction of a T-72AV (the remains of which can be seen below) by a T-72 'Ural' from Liwa Dawood. Although the presence of numerous ATGMs in the area could soften the tank duel claim, the T-72AV seems in a great hurry to leave the area, possibly because it became aware of the T-72 Ural.
Tank.. umm. "duel" between insurgents T-72 and SAA T-72 (from 8:42).
   Another notable operator is Jaish al-Islam, which bought two T-72s from a corrupt officer within the Army's elite 4th Armoured Division and captured at least another six, of which one T-72M1 TURMS-T. Jaish al-Islam's usage of its T-72s can be seen as quite revolutionary compared to other rebel groups in the Syrian Civil War, being the only group in Syria which operates various types of armour and infantry in a mechanized force, fully exploiting their potential. At least one 'T-72AV' was upgraded with additional armour on its glacis plate and rear by Jaish al-Islam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    Most Syrian T-72s lost their 12.7mm NSV heavy machine gun in the course of the Civil War. As these guns require the commander to leave the safety of the turret, thus leaving him greatly exposed to gunfire, they rarely saw use and were often dismounted to be mounted on pickup trucks instead. Some of those HMGs became target for militants without AT weapon, like this video shows:




   For example in Jobar, tankers dismounted their HMGs and gave them to infantry, which used them to cover tank during urban battles.




HMGs with very characteristic armored box for HMG collimating sight. Those NSVTs are "ex-tank" HMGs. 



Infantry use HMG to cover this T-72 by suppressing terrorists in building to the right from a tank.


   T-72s gone trough some upgrades, most noticeable are 2 - one of them is modernisation of T-72s by mounting slat armor on the glacis plate, turret, hull and the rear, providing a 360 degree coverage in horizontal plane. This type of armor is only seen on TURMS-T equipped T-72 'Urals' operating in and near Aleppo.






   Another upgrade, was first seen in late August, 2014. Tank received additional armor on the side, frontal armor, and around the turret, further reinforced by "cage" armor and a-la Merkava metal chaines, providing a 360 degree coverage.
I am interested in what kind of add-on armor was used to reinforce UFP. It could be just concrete, after all.
   Some upgraded tanks were immediately send into combat in Jobar, where two were destroyed. Other modernized tanks saw service in Aleppo. However, the actual combat performance of the armor package remain unknown and it is hard to judge from which type of AT weapon it protects well enough to be worth, as Syrian battlefield is filled with anything from disposable light AT rocket launchers, to heavy ATGM like TOW and Kornet. It is expected more T-72s will receive this armour package.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will copy/edit my post from WoT forum about Syrian tanks combat in areas like Jobar. Note - pictures shows different battles.




   In Syria, Filatov's and Kuznetsov's work and interaction with Syrian tankers allowed to see how some of SAA units addapted to their war. First thing is that FSA/ISIS/An-Nusra/etc quickly punished all those who were sticking their heads out of tanks, forcing all tankers deep into their vehicles. All those, who wanted adventure for their heads either got killed or saw how similar guy got killed. All equipment on tanks turrets (searchlights, HMG mounts, HMG ammunition boxes, and so on) after just several engagements becoming bullet-filled scrap, as one video from previous post shows. 
Kuznetsov talking with Syrian tanker about their vehicles.
Filatov with terrorist's greatings in his hands.
    Add here a not very modern level of tech of Syrain T-72s, and you will have a situation when tanks becoming nearly blind. Why use tanks then, in such situation when it will have problem locating enemy? Answer is simple - SAA have nothing else to do what is needed to be done - tanks carry cannons that can destroy enemy positions in adeqaute amount of time and create a breaching point for infantry.   
BMP-2 is moving through tight corridor of the local market to firing positions.
    At this war, a lot of battles happened in cities, with high amount of multi-store buildings around, when a single tank was exposed to a lot of houses, located at different hights and distances, and enemy connected those buildings into sometimes very serious WW1-esque frontline. Even when SAA knew an exact house, where terrorists/militants are located, spotting exact place where RPG gunner will pop up was a task that could not be completed well, because how entrenched and camouflage positions were and because of snipers "activities". Militants have their own CPs, OPs, and generally organisation of frontline combat, which helps to keep eyes on tanks without exposing themselfs.
Example of enviroment, where tanks are used in Syrian war. There are significant forces of insurgents there, as video recording from tanks shows later.
    Well-concealed snipers, MG gunners and to make things worse, mortars (especially heavy one, with 100+ kg mines that fill up air with deadly amount of fragments), coordinated by observation posts, TV cameras, that are mounted from tunnels and spotters are main reason why infantry can't just rush positions (while having acceptable for SAA casualties) and thats why SAA  needs tanks to fight and there is no substitute for it in Syria (Shilka can suppress well, but can't punch hard enough, SPGs have sledgehammers to hit enemies, but no armor to protect from very "upset" militants).    
Frontline is about 100 meters away and those tanks preparing for combat.
T-72 is moving through school yard to the frontline.
Infantry bring bigger guns to cover tanks.
It is time. Time to fight.
   Even when tanks are under infantry cover, enemy still manages to put HMG fire on tanks and infantry just can't pin point location of that HMG. There is ANNA news report about one of those battles when tanks whole time were under HMG sporadic suppressive fire during their operation. AFAIK there was 2 examples in Jobar of snipers located on opposite side of house from SAA, firing through several well-aligned specially made holes in walls. BTW those holes looks like normal hole from HMG bullet or 30 mm cannons, so no one pay too much attention to those bullet marks/holes, sometimes they are everywhere.
    Sometimes instead of HMG and RPG round can launched at tank, but RPGs are problem at close ranges. ATGMs are main problem for Syrain tankers at long ranges.
That one missed
Same HEAT grenade.
    Officers (in Jhobar, for example) addopted different tactics, moving job of "looking around" to specialized CPs/Observations posts, that were receiving information from infantry and tanks were send to destroy specific targets and not to stand around, a sort of hit-and-run under umbrella of infantry supression fire and vision from OP (tanks don't go "deep", sometimes less than 20-30 meters from infantry fortified positions). And that still doesn't completely mitigates the fact that enemy know pretty well how to be unseen. Which SAA is combating by shooting at possible positions no matter if "bad guys" were spotted or not spotted in this position at the frontline.
Tanks and other AFV commanders familiarize with today battlefield. They are going from position to position, looking at their "working place" from several angles.
Tanks and IFVs advance to infantry dismount points, BMP-2s provide covering fire with their 30 mm autocannons.
That building near road was under covering fire by one BMP-2.
Another exampe of 30 mm AC covering fire. 
BMP-2 at concealed position, providing covering fire.
     Frontline got supressed by 30 mm cannons in close proximity to forces, 125 mm guns usually take out targets deeper in enemy territory, and those targets, that are not visible for tanks are sometimes bombed by either Air forces or Artillery. Sometimes SPGs are used in direct fire mode to break especially well-build fortification, but such "stunts" can be done only under serious cover of either other AFVs, or by having serious physical cover.
BMP-2 on overwatch.
BMP-2 moving inside of unfinished building to different position.
Akatsiya shelling enemy fortification in direct fire mode.
    Sometimes SAA use T-55/BMP-2 combination, where T-55 from long range destroy enemy positions, while BMP-2 is trying to hit insurgents team, that are trying to relocate or find better position.
T-55, BMP-2 is not far from it.
T-55 moved to different position, Akatsiya is taking T-55's previous place to "deliver presents".
   Syrian tankers addopted some interesting tricks to deacrease their chances to be hit - for example if tanks have place to move, they never stop to move vehicle around. Sometimes those are just small moves (like forward and backwards, it looks like some kind of "dance") inside of small area, but it increase chances for RPG grenadier to miss. Tanks also frequently use cover to fire at enemies, with 2 or 3 tanks firing at same area from different angles, trying to "cut it" and reduce enemy forces ability to move out of danger zone.
   Tankers also are trying to reduce time, when they are moving through open areas, sometimes this leads to interesting decisions like bulldozing a tunnel right through several buildings. 
   Overall, tanks in Jobar are used as close range assault guns, as a tool to exchange infantry ability to advance. Tanks in Syrian war are not used as separate forces on its own, they almost always are close to infatry. Tankers are trying to be under cover of soldiers inside of buildings, while always trying to be in their viewrange. Targets, that tank can't engage (due to no LOS), are becoming artillery job, thats why close artillery strikes not far from tanks (100-200 meters) are not that rare in Syrian war.   
SAA soldier covering tanks. First barrel belongs to OSV-96 12.7 anti-material rifle.
Smoke from artillery HE shells cover this small square in front of business center
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Copy-pasting this article here to keep all info in one place and not search it on many blogs, linked in SH.



   Who actually operates Assad's tanks in Syria remains somewhat unclear: although many believe the Syrian Arab Army (SyAA) remains responsible for all combat tasks within Syria, the SyAA saw much of its manpower and equipment transferred to the National Defence Force (NDF) and other militias. However, the Syrian Arab Army still remains responsible for a number of brigades and for the many garrisons dotted around Syria. Any tanks found there remain under the command of the Syrian Arab Army.




   The tank fleet can be divided into three major types: the T-55, the T-62 and the T-72. Two additional types, the T-54 and the PT-76, were also once in Syrian service, but most of the surviving T-54s were donated to Lebanon and others stored. It is only now that a number are being brought back into service. The PT-76 fleet is believed to have been scrapped at the end of the last decade.




   It is commonly believed Syria was in the possession of nearly 5000 tanks, roughly divided between 2000 T-54/55s, 1000 T-62s and 1500 T-72s, before the Civil War began. However, these figures are largely distorted, and the actual number of tanks operated by Syria at the start of this decade lays closer to 2500, divided between around 1200 T-55s, 500 T-62s and 700 T-72s. Not all 2500 tanks were active at the same time, with large portions of the T-55 and T-62 fleet in reserve and stored.


   Of these 2500 tanks, over 1000 have been lost over the course of the Civil War. While the majority of these have been T-55s, the large size of that fleet makes up for these losses. An estimated 700 T-55s maintain their operational capabilities as of late 2014.  Many groups fighting for control over Syria also continue to operate various T-55s. A notable operator is the Islamic State, which became a major user after capturing dozens at Brigade 93. Much of the Brigade 93's inventory was later fielded in the Islamic State's offensive on Kobane.




   The T-55s can be divided into four variants: the standard T-55A, the North Korean upgraded T-55, the T-55AM and the T-55MV. Of these, the T-55A is most numerous type in service, followed by the North Korean upgraded examples, the T-55MV and the T-55AM. The T-55A and the North Korean upgraded T-55s are mostly found with the NDF, while the remaining T-55AMs and T-55MVs continue to soldier on with the SAA.




   The North Korean variants feature a North Korean designed laser rangefinder (LRF) and some even smoke grenade launchers and a 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun. At least two North Korean produced LRFs are known to be installed on Syrian T-54/55s. The upgrade for these tanks, based on lessons learned in the 1973 war, was carried out in the early seventies and eighties as a cheaper alternative to the Soviet T-55 upgrade, which brought a part of Syria's fleet up to T-55AM standard. This upgrade included the KTD-2 laser-range finder, side skirts and smoke grenade launchers. The addition of BDD appliqué armour for the turret and front of the hull was ommited due budget constrictions however.


   The T-55MV is by far the most modern T-55 variant in service within Syria, one could argue their combat effectiveness would even surpass that of Syria's T-72s. 200 T-55s were upgraded to MV standard in Ukraine in 1997. Opposed to Syria's T-55AMs, the T-55MVs were fully upgraded, including a new engine and explosive reactive armour (ERA) blocks for increased armour protection against rocket-propelled grenades





Example of upgraded T-55MVs with ERA and laser rangefinders 



A T-55AM operated by the rebel Ghurabaa' Houran Battalion operating in the Dara'a Governorate


   Syrian T-55MVs are also equipped with the 9M117M Bastion anti-tank missile fired through the T-55's 100mm main gun. Although the 9M117M was previously unknown to be in Syrian service, rebels captured around a dozen of them near Tel Ahmar, Quneitra Governorate. Quneitra has traditionally been home to the T-55MV fleet, and these missiles would have been a nasty suprise for Israeli armour in case of war. Due to the cost of these missiles, each tank only carries a few. Most of the missiles remain stockpiled in ammunition depots, like Tel Ahmar, along the Golan Heights for possible future use against Israeli armor.



   Some T-55MVs also received a mysterious device mounted over the laser-range finder. This device most likely functions as a sort of camera. A similar looking device was also spotted on an BMP-1 upgrade offered by the Ukraine. Only footage showing the interior of the tank can provide definitive proof. 



   Similar to what has already been seen on the Republican Guard's T-72s, the T-55 fleet is now gradually receiving cage armour reinforced by sandbags to improve protection against RPGs.





Crude variation of T-55 up-armoring



This one looks much more professional upgrade.





And here is rare video of Syrian T-55 firing Bastion GL-ATGM against guntruck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significance here, if I'm correct, being that it's a B or S model (see front turret armor) versus the M1's/A's Syria is known to use.  Fourth and fifth road wheels look a bit droopy there.

Problem is that this photo does not look like it is in Syria. I think it might be from Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Scolo, but a video with BTR-82A showed a tank with T-72 chassis and turret completely covered with camo net, which i found to be unusual. I was following this conflict pretty closely, but never saw such use of camo net by Syrian tankers.

Screenshots of it i posted in T110 thread. If you want i can post them here as well, but only tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any images yet of those Russia tanks reported to have been deployed to Syria?


You must be careful with this photo, for it's highly classified and taken from the same reliable sources as those who captured overwhelming evidence of T-90AMs in Ukraine!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Well, looking at amount of info that i can get about Al-Mukowama, i decided to make a separate thread about them where we (or just me) will collect information about Al-Mukowama aka Hezbollah aka Islamic Resistance of Lebanon. Will try to update this thread as often as new information will be avaliable.
         First section will be about Hezbollah military wing/Al-Mukowama in general. Second - infantry. 3rd - armor, 4th - special services.
         Creating this thread now, will add major updates later.

         1. What is Hezbollah
          Hebollah is a Lebanon political party that represents southern Lebanon and shia communities interests and also is big part of social life in Lebanon (healthcare, construction, education, etc.). 
         "Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings – it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members." (yes, this is from wiki, but it represents social aspect of Hezbollah pretty well)
         Current views on organisation are very different, but all they can be generally divided in 2 point of views - first is that organisation aim is the abolition of the confessional political system imposed by the colonialists, replacing it with an Islamic states modeled on Iranian example second is that organisation gone though serious re-view of it's place and ideaology and accepted Lebanon internal politics rules and now work to improve shia communities place in Lebanon society. 
         A bit of history. 
         After South Lebanon occupation in 1982, different existing groups of shias (including radicals), that were not connected to "Amal" party (only shia party at the time in Lebanon) started to form a "Hezbollah" in Bekaa valley. Unification of different groups was happening in the same time with increasing connection with Iran, that was looking at possibilities of "exporting" Islamic Revolution to other countries in the region. Bekaa was de-facto controlled by Syria, which had direct impact (although not critical) on creation of Hezbollah. Syria allowed a connection of Hezbollah and Iran IRSG personal, that started to train first groups of Islamic resistance. Syrian officials and Hezbollah contact were limited, main questions were paths of weapons and supplies to formed organisation to combat Israelis in Lebanon and security issues.
         Following the conclusion of the Taif Agreement and end of Lebanon civil war in 1990, Syria became a guarantor of stability in Lebanon and had serious influence on internal policy of neighbor. Hezbollah/Lebanon Resistance was allowed to have weapons and continue their actions against Israel. Syrian officials did not interfere with economic re-building plan, that was put in place by Lebanon gov. After Israelis left Southern Lebanon in 2000, the "Hezbollah-Syria-Iran" axis did not stopped to work, actually it continued to work pretty well.

         "Cedar Revolution" in 2005 and withdrawal of Syrian forces changed political landscape of Lebanon, opening new possibilites for Hezbollah - for the first time organisation competed for a place in the government. On March 8, 2005, after only a few weeks after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri (Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon in 1992-1998 and of 2000-2004. He was killed in Beirut in a terrorist act of 14 February 2005), when anti-Syrian sentiment in Lebanon were at the highest point, the General secretary of "Hezbollah" Nasrallah spoke in support of Syria. "Hezbollah" was to counter the paradigm, formed in Lebanon about orientation to the West and Saudi Arabia, and offered it's own project, but it was feasible "only with the preservation of regional partners".
         Over  course of 2000s "Hezbollah" was the main proponent of this vector of development. Support in Lebanon was achieved through large-scale social projects, including nondenominational, individual successes at the border with Israel and the active promotion of the Islamic Resistance. 
         "Arab Spring".
        "Hezbollah" with optimism greeted the events of the "Arab spring" in countries most affected by it, as it served Hezbollah's regional interests. The criteria according to which party estimated the riots, were formulated by March 25, 2011 by Nasralla: firstly, it is the position of the former regime in relation to arab-Israel conflict; secondly, the desire and the ability to implement major reforms. Despite the uniqueness of the situation in each country, "Hezbollah" is regarded massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, as a struggle against tyranny. The party supported the efforts of the Bahraini Shiites, aimed at achieving equality in political life. 
         The victory of the party "An-Nahda" in Tunisia, in terms of Hezbollah was an opportunity for Tunisia to find their own political identity and refuse Westernization. In the same way, Hezbollah welcomed the success of "Muslim Brotherhood" in Egypt, but later abandoned it because of the Syrian issue.  With regard to the events in Libya, "Hezbollah" has supported the overthrow of Gaddafi, but condemned Western intervention. It is worth mentioning that "Hezbollah" has long accused Gaddafi in the disappearance and alleged murder in 1978 of Musa al-Sadr, an important figure of the "Shiite revival" in Lebanon.
         Arab Spring and Syria
         "Hezbollah" approach to the assessment of events in the neighboring Syrian is radically different from the one described above, but based on the same criteria. Syria - an essential element of the "resistance front" (al-Jabhat Mumanaa) Iran-Syria-"Hezbollah", despite the fact that on the Syrian-Israeli border for a long time remained calm. 
         The armed fight against Israel until the complete liberation of Lebanese territory (including the Shebaa farms) and aid to the Palestinians in the struggle against the invaders were proclaimed as key objective of "Hezbollah". Therefore, anti-Israeli views are put at the center of patriotic party rhetoric. In this regard, "Hezbollah" is positioning itself not as a Shia party in the multi-confessional Lebanon, but as a nationwide movement. In fact, Hezbollah in Lebanon has formed a complete culture of resistance, supported by competent propaganda efforts: periodic celebrations in memory of the "fallen martyrs", publishing work, aimed at a better understanding of history, folk art contests, social program, etc. It resonates not only in the Shia community, but also attracts other communities of the country.
         The intervention in the armed conflict in Syria, on the one hand, distract "Hezbollah" from its main purpose - the protection of southern Lebanon, and the other side serves this purpose, as a possible regime change in Syria would weaken the party. Syria provides the main transit route for arms from Iran, "Hezbollah".

         However, this is not the main reason for the decision of "Hezbollah" to take part in the Syrian war. With the deepening of the conflict and the emergence of a growing number of foreign jihadists in Syria, it became apparent that the country was transformed into an arena for regional confrontation. Groups of Islamic radicals, and foregin-controlled FSA/"Moderate" opposition, have threatened the established order of things. Moreover, for "Hezbollah" is vital to prevent their penetration into Lebanese territory. Nasrallah, in one of his speeches, said: "Some insist that Lebanon's problem is that "Hezbollah" went to Syria. I would argue that the problem of Lebanon is that [we] were late.
      <...> If takfiri-terrorists prevail in Syria, we will all be destroyed".    It should be emphasized that "Takfiri" that Nasrallah and other Hezbollah-connected medias mentions, wrongly interpreted by many observers and journalists as the Sunni Islamism. "Hezbollah" maintains relationships with a number of Sunni Islamist groups. Summarizing the Syrian radical groups by "takfiri" term (no "murtads", comrades!), "Hezbollah" thus draws attention to the threat posed by these groups to religious minorities (including Shiites). Support for Syria by "Hezbollah" can not be considered only in the interfaith dimension. Mukowama actions and Hezbollah involvement in any way is not a support of the Alawite community, as many brain-dead journalists and sell-out medias tries to show it.  
         The factor of the need to protect Shiite shrines are used to mobilize the Lebanese community (and by some degree Iraqi shias as well), but, in general the party avoids movement to inter-confessional conflict, especially in Lebanon. The main motive of "Hezbollah" is not religious, but political. It is vitally important priority remains the preservation of the "axis of resistance" and the current balance of forces in the region. Therefore, the party comes to the Syrian events otherwise than to the "Arab Spring" as a whole: not as a confrontation between the people and the yet another tyrant regime, but as the United States  Israel and their allies attempts to change the regime in Syria. Following the logic of "Hezbollah", problems could be solved with the help of internal reforms Syria problem, while the intervention of Western countries, pressing their interests, must be prevented. In this context, "Hezbollah" has repeatedly stressed the readiness of Assad to reform and dialogue with the opposition.
         For a long period of "Hezbollah" refused to acknowledge their involvement in the conflict while expressing support for the Assad and Syrian government  with words only (or nearly words only). 
         In 2011, Nasrallah defined the party's position in relation to the events in Syria as:
      priority is stability and security; call for the Syrian people to choose the path of dialogue, rather than confrontation with the government, and to allow him to carry out the necessary reforms; non-interference in the Lebanese internal affairs of Syria; denial of sanctions promoted by the West and imposed on Lebanon.    Leaders of "Hezbollah" has repeatedly stressed their belief that the conflict will became long war, and hoped to avoid direct participation.    INTERVENTION IN CONFLICT will be covered in 5th posts in this thread.  
         2. "Military Wing" of Hezbollah [WIP]

         There is no military unit in Hezbollah political party structure per say, the armed organisation that is usually refered as Hezbollah is a separate structure called Lebanese/Islamic Resistance or Al-Mouqowama/Al-Mukowama/Al-Muqawama, created because of southern Lebanon occupation by Israel. Al-Mukowama continue to grow and improve and currently it is one of most combat effective forces (relative to their size) in ME.
         Al-Mukowama is basically smaller and poorer version of IDF and In fact in 2000s most of Al-Mukowama equipment was Israeli-made. Recruitment is conscript-based, with big number of active reservists (periodically going to training facilities). Officers are usually somebody with plenty of combat experience, some of which gone trough training in Iran (including specialists like ATGM gunners and etc.).
         From 2006 Al-Muqawama was working on their Armor branch of forces, which they revealed during later stage of Syrian war. Resistance also have pretty seroius insititute of military advisors, number of which were working in Iraq with shia paramilitaries, were spotted multiple times in different parts of Syria and rumors say that they are involved in Yemen conflict, although i have no photo or video evidence to confirm such claims.
         Overall numbers are unknown, but counting reservists it may reach 40k. Primarly Al-Muqawama forces are light infantry, which is well equipped by ME arab countries standarts. Each member usually have 2 sets of equipment with wood/forest/green and desert camos (usually locally produced), protection (bodyarmor and helmets), ammocarriers (plenty of old Israel gear copies) and so on. Squads have internal organisation similar to army units - grenadiers/infantrymens/sharpshooter with DMR/MG gunner, medic and so on. Tankers, Marksmans, RPG gunners - all have basic infantry training as well, they can be seen carrying some version of AK as secondary weapon. Resistance also have dedicated AT units, reconnaissance, AA, artillery. As i already said - this is pocket version of actual army without Navy and air forces.
         Currently Al-Muqawama have bases not only in Lebanon, but in Syria as well (Qusayr/Al-Quseir for example).

         3. Why it is allowed to exist in parallel to LAF [WIP]
         The simple question why inside of one country effectively 2 armies are allowed to exist can be answered in this 2 ways - Lebanon is not 1 country, it is more of a collection of communities that share borders, so it can have more than 1 armed groups that exist officially (How about Lebanese communists armed wing? Yes, they do exist)... or those 2 armies are doing what other army can't and second answer is something that i feel is closer to reality. 
         Because of sophisticated interal policy of Lebanon state, LAF to start to act needs approval from several interested groups (which plenty of times have conficting views), which lead to LAF being slow to respond or even incapable to do something that situation may require. And this is where Resistance comes into play - it can be used to do the job that official army should have been doing, but can't because it may start serious tensions in Lebanon. Primary example - Syria, through Syria-Lebanon border plenty of terrorists groups are trying to get into country and LAF is doing almost nothing to prevent it, which led to Al-Muqawama cleaning border and fight in areas in Syria, close to Lebanon (Arsal, Beeka, 1st and 2nd Qalamoun, battle for Zabadani being best examples).
         It appears that Lebanon intelligence service - the G2 - is closelly connected to Al-Muqowama. Abbas Ibragim, the head of G2, was once reported by Al-Manar as coordinator of Army and Al-Muqowama actions in recent years. On 12 December of 2015 his nephew (Mohammed Hussein Ibrahim) was KIA in Syria in SW part of Aleppo province, which also shows some connections between him and Al-Mukowama. Another interesting example of possible connection between LAF and Resistance is Saudi Arabia canceling military aid for LAF about a year ago, which Saudi officials explained as punishment of LAF for support of Al-Mukowama.


      Lebanese President Michel Aoun with Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad surrounded by Al-Muqowama fighters at a Hezbollah site in South Lebanon.
         4. Iran - Al-Muqawama connection [WIP]
         As i already noted, some Resistance personal gone trough training in Iran, for example - several Kornet ATGM teams before 2006 Lebanon war. It appears that in recent years Resistance advisors work with some of shia units that also have Iranian support, primarly in Iraq. There is not much information on this, but small pieces are getting to public. There was an event several years back when Iranian general was KIA during Israely strikes on Al-Mukowama base at Lebanon-Israel border. Another point - recently shown Al-Muqawama AT teams vehicles are armed with double Kornet launchers, which were spotted in Iran, AFAIK.
         Most blatant example of Iran-Hezbollah connections is this recently appeared photo of now dead Al-Muqawama officer Syed Aqeel Fahas with IRGC General Qasem Soleimani.

    • By Must Be Spoon Fed
      I'm interested in Soviet armor production and deployment. Especially of T-55 tank and its variants. Sadly, most sources touch this subject very generally while I would want to get a more detailed view. How much tanks were produced in which country and at what year. Were Soviets producing armor for themselves or for export. Any source which would go into bit more detail about it is appreciated. I would appreciate if someone could help me find information required about those tanks as so far I can rely only on quite general information. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
  • Create New...