The Syrians have been attaching GoPro cameras to their Russian-built tanks and recording videos of their operations, where they use the tanks like close air support:
They operate out of a base (00:04 Assembling a column), like some sort of cheap terrestrial Apaches, and proceed to various missions like escorting teams of infantry in IFVs (04:55 Crossing enemy territory) or covering their “beachheads” in various built-up sites. (10:00 Dropping troops on the enemy’s rear).
Instead of Hellfire rockets, they have the 122 mm main gun, which is always moving to cover arcs of fire, like a rifleman on the advance. The drivers seem to know their business, never hesitating to trundle down alleys, scoot past possible ambushes and roar over fields.
You may, like myself, have been somewhat astonished to see so little infantry in play. That’s because the infantry is apparently not used for direct combat. Rather they are used as spotters for the tanks. You will note how the the tanks flit from spot to spot and fire directly on this window or that. They are not shooting at random, but rather under the specific instruction of spotters.
For although Jobar seems empty, it is full of eyes. From other GoPro videos it will be evident that the high risk buildings and ground level structures are infested with sniper hides, ATGM nests and roving bands of infantrymen with RPGs working on both sides of the fight. Possibly there may even be factions among the rebels.
It appears to be very difficult for unprotected to move openly along the roads. Thus, the Syrian troops prefer to travel in IFVs escorted by tanks. The tanks themselves are plated over with explosive reactive armor tiles (ERA) against the omnipresent danger of ATGMs, which in some other GoPro videos, hit the tanks and cook them off with spectacular results.
In the video above, the tanks are used to deploy spotters around a rebel pocket. The IFVs are used like amtracs while the tanks are employed like gunfire support ships. Then, when the infantry advance to contact, they radio the whereabouts of rebels to the tanks, which blast them with their main guns or shoot through the walls with their coax.
It seems the one thing tanks are not for is shooting other tanks, but I’m betting the Russian tanks are designed for exactly that.
Modern infantry portable weapons should be powerful enough to rival the tank’s main gun for these roles, especially if you can carry extra ammo on the IFV. Anything to reduce the number of targets for the ATGMs, and infantry are just cheaper, especially with the Syrian’s proper respect for the soldier’s life. Mount the coax on the IFV and you can do without tanks entirely.
Not that I’m suggesting the Syrians have the resources for the necessary R&D.
Alrenous said:
“Not that I’m suggesting the Syrians have the resources for the necessary R&D.”
Seeing that at least one Kurdish blacksmith has manufactured his own armoured vehicle (http://rt.com/news/191312-syria-kurds-home-made-armor/), the Syrians could probably do the same (or better if they can get hold of weapons from Hezbollah or one of the other local arms suppliers).
Based on the past couple wars in Iraq, American tanks are excellent at shooting Russian tanks. They’re also excellent at crossing wide expanses of open country to strike at an enemy weakness — at least as long as they have air superiority.
The Israelis found that their Merkava tanks could be taken out by man-portable missiles, but they generally survived.
Vehicle-mounted machine-guns don’t have the same effect as a well-sited, and dug-in, tripod-mounted gun.
If it is a 122mm gun then it is not a tank gun but a self propelled artillery piece.
I really wish English speakers could agree to use tank as a generic term for armored fighting vehicles, instead of restricting it specifically to main battle tanks. Then we could have battle tanks, troop tanks, artillery tanks, etc., instead of tanks, armored personnel carriers (or infantry fighting vehicles), self-propelled guns, etc.
It’s as if we decided that ship meant battleship, and any other use was incorrect.
The Tamil Tigers used armored bulldozers in Sri Lanka, with cage armor too. There’s a picture on wikipedia.
(The 122mm thing looks like it was an error. It’s been changed.)
Also, I think that “homemade” Kurdish rocket launcher is a BM-21.
“The video for example, is so clear and steady as to seem unreal, yet one must constantly remind oneself, it is real. It is the movie images we are accustomed to watching which are unreal.”
I smell an opportunity. There have been a few more-dramatic-than-drama war videos I’ve seen. The Afghan IED medic video. The Edinborough Risk Route Irish ambush video which has been the subject of thorough analysis. The closest film treatment I can think of is “No Man’s Land (2001)”.