Footage of Syrian Armor (T-72) Ambush

Broncazonk

Broncazonk

What the hell?
Joined
29 August 2011
Messages
134
Reaction score
5
Three (3) Syrian T-72's (on patrol) drive into a VERY nice ambush. I like the first command detonation, but the AT missile shot is sweet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qclCuQyzfB4&feature=player_embedded

That's NOT the work of unschooled rebels, gents, that's high-quality work.

Bronc
 
Speaking as a tanker.. um no.

Defender mistakes:

1. They should have stopped the first tank.
2. Then shot the rear one.
3. It's an RPG, not an ATGM ans they should have aimed for turret side/rear or tank rear as teh front glacias is one of the toughest locations to hit.


Attacker mistakes:

1. Don't drive down dirt roads when approaching enemy positions, especially in this day of IEDs.
2. Don't drive over large bumps in the road.
3. No overwatch
4. They should have started to rake the buildings with MG fire as soon as the ambush was sprung.
5. Should have hit likely defender positions with main gun fire.
6. No use of smoke to cover retreat
7. Did not travel with supporting infantry.
 
G'day SpudmanWP, I agree with most of your analogy as a tanker!

As an Infantryman / Assault Pioneer, I noticed the following bad bad mistakes:

  • Tanks should not enter built-up areas unsupported by infantry!(and if possible not enter urban areas at all! - Tank crews visibility is very restricted! - Their primary defence of maneuverability is defeated! - Their sound in built up areas announces their every presents and direction of advance! - They are very suitable to entrapment and ambushes, by infantry, engineers, Assault Pioneers and partisans!
(Strangely the Arab armies have never really been able to grasp combined arms operations!!)
  • It's your supporting infantry that predominantly locate and defeat threatening anti-tank teams (whether they be RPG or ATGM's). With tanks (is used) providing direct fire support!
  • The Syrian tanks slow and awkward withdraw, clearly emphasized that they have not trained as they fight!! Yes smoke should have been deployed to mask their vehicles from both observation and anti-tank teams!
  • Note that all three tanks had their turrets trained in the direction of their advance, as opposed to a coordinated arch arrangement, so as to give over-all protection.
RE GTX's
That first explosion could also be a mine
Click to expand...

Mate I'm confident that it was an IED (probably an artillery shell either captured or a UXO). For the blast was of a dispersed nature - as opposed to a concentrated shape-charge i.e anti-tank mine!
Secondly there would be far more obvious detrimental damaged to the tank that hit the mine!

Note: In the end, this footage is only a snap shot of the actual event! We don't have a full picture!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Maybe lessons for tankers.
Drive faster when not near cover.
Clear mines.
 
The shot on the reversing tank doesn't seem to penetrate; the tank seems to still be moving. Admittedly, the clip cuts out too soon to really tell.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom