READER COMMENTS: "Syrian tank operates in Darayya"

Posted by Joe at March 19, 2013 3:00 AM ET:

I'm no military strategist, so I must pose the questions: What is the purpose of firing tank rounds in a obviously already destroyed section of a city? Granted I did not watch the entire video, but what I did watch showed no incoming fire to the tank.

Posted by Bill Ardolino at March 19, 2013 3:26 AM ET:

The most likely answer is suppression. Tanks - especially those operating in an urban environment - are vulnerable to infantry wielding anything from incendiary sticky bombs to anti-tank missiles. Ideally this is countered by infantry that protects the tank, but the Syrian forces have been caught without running coordinated infantry units, or their infantry units themselves have been vulnerable to lighter weapons (and especially sniper fire). In addition, periodic small arms fire is heard in the clip, so it's not like all of the ruined buildings are empty.

So if I had to guess, I'd say that some of the tank shells are fired because a crew member thought he saw something, and some are fired just to keep rebel heads down. The logic being that an attacker is much more likely to think twice when a tank is periodically belching high explosives.

Posted by blert at March 19, 2013 8:31 AM ET:

Joe...

FYI, The ANNA is a subsidiary of the SVR/KGB -- aka Central -- functioning as a media arm.

Elsewhere on the Web you'll find ANNA clips wherein Russian media ( GRU ) are asking for field reports from the front line tank troops WRT their Russian tanks.

ANNA is not, by any means, a disinterested party.

Abkazia is, of course, that portion of Georgia that Russia snapped off less than ten years ago.

(North and South Abkazia straddle the mountain range.)

Unlike the Western spy organizations, the KGB ( nee SVR and FSB ) ran a massive police state. It was the CIA/ NSA/ FBI/ ... on and on -- to include a separate para-military organization* -- all of it under the KGB.

*This was used, chronically, to put down strikes, riots... even insulting graffiti.

Central is still very, very, full of agitprop. However, since their brand is as stinko as the Nazis, they keep cranking out new fronts to hide behind -- just like the Salafists generate new 'brigades.'

========

Having said all of that...

One never knows if the video -- which is of studio quality -- is anything other than a recruiting clip for the Assad Army.

Unlike other uploads, the above clip is so 'clean' that one could reasonably assume that it has been professionally shot and processed. (Compare it to the videos uploaded by Americans in Afghanistan.)

Posted by Bill Ardolino at March 19, 2013 1:32 PM ET:

blert is correct that the ANNA is "not a disinterested party;" their reports read like propaganda, with dramatic music and mentions of Assad forces "freeing a city from terrorists and criminals," etc.

That said, like the rebel groups and regime forces that continually upload unverified videos from the conflict, they have plenty of dramatic material to work with and an apparent reputation for filming combat, at least according to a Moscow Times profile:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crazy-abkhaz-journalists-cover-syria-frontline/476903.html

(I am unaware that the Moscow Times has become a subsidiary of Russian intelligence, though planted stories in independent Russian media are possible, and unverified ones even more so)

It's also theoretically possible the Syrian regime staged the destruction of one of their vehicles at 1:12 in the above video for the benefit of obtaining dramatic footage for a friendly news outlet/propaganda arm ... but given the volume of rebel-footage of tanks being destroyed (and Occam's razor), I doubt it.

An additional video below purports to show both sides of the exchange at around the 40 minute mark: a clip of rebel forces with anti-tank weapons cut with the mounted ANNA tank cam, followed by the aftermath:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9b_1363376071

Posted by blert at March 19, 2013 11:04 PM ET:

Joe...

Some of the shots were for the explicit purpose of bringing up dust. You'll note that especially at the end. At that point the tank is also deliberately 'smoking the engine.'

(Russian tanks -- since the T-34 -- have Diesel injectors that spew fuel into the e x h a u s t manifold for the sole purpose of emitting enormous amounts of smoke. (Water is also added to lower the temperature and cause incomplete burning -- ie smoke.)

The kicked up dust blinds the opposition -- while the trick optics of the modern tanks can see right through the dust. It is reasonable to suspect that the tank has blank rounds/ training rounds that can be fired at will to create dust without causing down range impacts.

Posted by Ken North at March 20, 2013 3:38 AM ET:

I'd be interested in some informed commentary on the spotter at about 9.35 on the reel. He's at the extreme right of the screen, wearing a red shirt, holding a W/T, seemingly watching the dismounted infantry unloading the BMP in the foreground.

He appears to be in a good recon position, crouched down, and then when the tank rolls up, he stands up, gives it a cursory glance over his shoulder, pulls back out of sight somewhat, and keeps eyes on the troops to his front.

Assume that he's FSA, al Nusrah, whoever, but he has been down range far too long. Stone cold operator, nonetheless.

Posted by Jo at March 20, 2013 1:07 PM ET:

Thanks all for the insight! I didn't notice any explosions down range so the shooting blanks theory seems very reasonable to me.

Also, the quality of the footage first grabbed me as well: certainly not shot with a cheap helmet-cam and is awfully steady given the environment.

Posted by CP4a6O115hm3n7 at March 22, 2013 7:57 AM ET:

This tank has no purpose. It is only wasting its rounds and it basically cannot see who or what its shooting at.

Posted by Render at April 3, 2013 7:31 PM ET:

1: A strong second to everything that Bill Ardolino already said.

2: Those T-72M1's belong to an "elite" (Alawite, politically reliable) unit. They are all part of a batch of 122 upgraded by an Italian company. They do not have thermal imaging.

http://fr.rian.ru/defense/20111113/191958618.html

3: None of the armor tactics shown are out of the ordinary, at least according to the old Soviet Cold War Manuals, last seen in use in and around Grozny and on the road to Tbilisi.

4: Wasting load out rack space on blank ammo for the main gun in a combat zone is extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not even sure there is a common blank round for the smoothbore 125mm gun, but I'll quickly grant that 3rd world usage may vary. 125mm AP rounds don't make a huge blast compared to HE rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eFePf6mWM

THAT'S
PAINT,
R