Well this does not..
https://www.rt.com/news/384144-syria-village-tomahawks-strike-aftermath/
How do you know that the damage was caused by a TLAM striking that part of the village?
The tower in that video clip can be identified and is about half a mile away from the ammunition storage facilities on the base. The debris that the guy has on the table and later holding up doesn’t look like TLAM parts to me.
The ammo dumps were struck and it looks like ordnance coming down on part of the village.
See following for ISI analysis. See image with ammo dumps marked.
It does not really require a rocket scientist to solve this.. There are no “US lies” or “Russian lies”.. it’s simply a matter of interpretation..
– if Americans say 58 out of 59 Tomahawks hit the target, they are most likely right.. 58 Tomahawks seem to have hit the air base..
– if Russians say 23 out of 59 Tomahawks hit the targets, they are right, too. 23 missiles could have hit something at least remotely valuable, the rest were spent on piles of rubble, rusty fuel tanks or concrete pathways.Take this photo for example..
Western media would write – 3 of 3 hits !! The Tomahawks have striked with unparalleled accuracy !!
Russian media would write – 1 hit, 2 missed !! Only one missile out of three has managed to hit the shelter !! (which was empty, BTW)Neither side is lying, this is how propaganda works.. an outright lie will get you caught, you just don’t do this.. half-truths are much better as they leave plenty of room for later interpretation.. US can only work with sat pics, these are kinda deceiving as they show the splashes but they won’t tell you that nothing valuable has been achieved.. Russians know it, that is why they have rushed in reporter teams to show the real damage.. and it’s funny to see the western press grasping at straws and reposting those two burned Fitters over and over.. suddenly, even Sputnik news are good enough for them as a source..
Anyway, the attack shows several things.. a) the Tomahawk missile is a reliable and accurate weapon.. b) Trump definitely did not have intention to destroy Sheyrat or even impair the ability of SyAAF to strike against the IS c) there were no chem weapon storages on Sheyrat. since the US do not intent to carry out any more strikes, it wasn’t Assad’s work and US intel is well aware of it..
BTW, I am still struggling with the US claim that 20 aircraft have been destroyed.. the images only show two.. where is the rest? I have serious doubts that the whole air base even hosted that many operational aircraft..
Nuff said.. nothing more to see here, move on..
That shelter was certainly not empty. Munitions were stored in the shelter.
Front
Rear
That shelter features quite heavily in the following video.
See 0:40 to 0:52, 1:20, 2:03 to 02:09, 3:34 to 3:40
ISI analysis showing that equipment was at the location of those two likely TLAM impacts in front of that shelter.
http://www.imagesatintl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Hangars-1.png
It does not really require a rocket scientist to solve this.. There are no “US lies” or “Russian lies”.. it’s simply a matter of interpretation..
– if Americans say 58 out of 59 Tomahawks hit the target, they are most likely right.. 58 Tomahawks seem to have hit the air base..
– if Russians say 23 out of 59 Tomahawks hit the targets, they are right, too. 23 missiles could have hit something at least remotely valuable, the rest were spent on piles of rubble, rusty fuel tanks or concrete pathways.Take this photo for example..
That look likes shelter hit, doors blown out and some of the shelter contents thrown clear and burning up/cooking off outside.
Update on that. Equipment was sitting there at those two scorched areas in front of the shelter. Difficult to work out what it is? Possibly targeted by TLAM?
See link
http://www.imagesatintl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Hangars-1.png
From
http://www.imagesatintl.com/us-strike-syria/
See before after at CNN link.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.html
He does not have to downplay it.. the strike produced very modest results..
So much rant.. He might be referencing the Su-22M-4Ks and stocks of weapons which have been left intact despite being in clearly defined shelters..
[ATTACH=CONFIG]252421[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]252422[/ATTACH]
It is a justified “rant”. Just a coincidence then that Major-General Igor Konashenkov makes the claim as the old junk aircraft are re-shown for a second time in the UAV video? 🙂 The claims of 23 hits is just ridiculous. Even commercial satellite imagery shows at least 44 hits. Take into consideration that some of those targets were hit more than once. As of last night the US assessment from US General Votel was that 57 cruise missiles struck their targets. Some of the shelters in the north west of the airbase were not struck and it is assessed that they were off limits due to Russians operating in proximity.
These are the old junk Su-7s that the Russian UAV video footage shows twice.
From post strike videos. Sourced from Twitter.
MiG-17 and three of the four Su-7s in the following screen capture.
April 7, 2017
ISI FIRST TO ANALYZE SHAYRAT AIRFIELD MISSILE ATTACK
Based on very high resolution imagery captured less than 10 hours after the attack, ISI presents in depth battle damage assessment
ISI very high resolution satellite imagery was able to reveal the results of the Tomahawk cruise missiles attack on the Al-Shayrat Air Base. According to ISI experts, the total of 44 targets hit. Several targets may have hit twice.
An in-depth examination of the damage to the objectives shows that 13 double hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) got 23 hits. 5 workshops got hit. The workshops are not necessarily related to WMD, but to aircraft and their ability to do maintenance and fly.
Ten ammunition storages got hit. Seven fuel reservoirs of the AFB got hit at two sites with eight hits total. Two locations remain untouched. One SA6 Battery utterly destroyed along with its radars and control systems. In total, five SA6 Battery elements hit.
The results show that the target hits were accurate and that the Tomahawks have been used effectively against quality targets. Although 58 missiles hit the base, it seems that the overall damage to the base is limited because the warhead of the Tomahawk is not considered large and weighs about 450 kg.
The “23” claim made by Major-General Igor Konashenkov is utterly ludicrous. It is just embarrassing that a military professional has to peddle such non-sense.
Lol. You have no problem to take what the US says at face value and you are asking me to disbelieve what the Russian MoD says.
So you don’t think that is the intention of elements within the Russian Ministry of Defence to deceive and downplay the strike? This is simply embarrassing from Major-General Igor Konashenkov. This is why I take his “23” claim with a huge pinch of salt. It is a wonder that he can say it with a straight face? 🙂
Konashenkov states at 4:20 seconds. “Both parking places and aircraft were not damaged”
He is referencing the old decoy aircraft. Those pieces of junk have been in the same position for at least 10 years! No US planner is going to even waste their time with the decoys. It is just laughable that he attempts to peddle such non-sense. Of course he knows exactly what he is doing and of course the vast majority will lap it up. That is the whole point of pushing out the “23” and the reference to undamaged aircraft. I bet that it would have been the reverse if the decoys had been targeted. The good Major General would have been mocking the US for wasting millions on them.
In Google Earth select “View” from the menu and scroll down and select “Historical Imagery”
Su-7s and MiG-15/17
34 29 23.43N 36 55 07.42E
Imagery from 29th January 2007
Although not in the UAV footage there are some old decoy Fishbeds at the other end of the airfield. These too have been in the exact same positions for at least 10 years.
34 29 29.74N 36 53 47.52E
Imagery from 29th January 2007
The decoy Fishbeds at Shayrat imaged after the US strike.
How do you really know that 59 of the 59 hit the target? You are relying on the claims of the US military. Do you not think that is their job to portray every attack as 100% on target?
MIC rules the states and its their reputation at stake.
LOL! Where did I say that 59 hit the target? Why are you taking at face value that only 23 hit the target? Would you also believe a claim that only 15 hit the target if the Russia Ministry of Defence announced it? Think about it? Put yourself in the shoes of a spokesman in the Russian Ministry of Defence. At all costs the strike has to be played down and they throw out a figure that is essentially click bait. The result is that the story goes viral and conspiracy people fill in the blanks. Based on that 23 claim alone that blank has already been filled in by armchair warriors claiming that Russians shot down the rest.
The same goes for the Russian UAV footage that focuses on the intact aircraft next to the runway. Of course the Russians know that those are old retired types/decoys and that the US planners have left them alone. Old MiG-15 or 17 plus Su-7 and or Su-17s that have been there for years. By doing so they know that the footage will go viral and ignorance will take over with the armchair warriors claiming “missed aircraft”. Can you see how the propaganda works?
Sign In
