Russians fucking up ISIS with missiles

>>34351691
Dispersion, concealment and fortification.

>>34351772
AKA hide amongst civilians like cowards

>>34351691
Whats up with the massive overpenetration? I mean that explosion/fire/blast going on on the target's opposite side... Ivan is not using AShMs, is he?

Also
>how do you defend yourself against something like this if you don't have radars??
you don't. By the time you figure out it's headed your way, those things are already there.
Only thing you can do is avoid getting targeted in the first place by being sneaky af. And chances are, if you are on the recieving end of a cruise missile strike, you're either a CAG or similar (and thus you HAVE radars and CIWS and all those fun toys) OR you're a goatherder with only a vague idea what airplanes, drones, satellites etc. are, so avoiding them is kinda really hard for you to do because you have no clue what is even possible.

>>34351691
Run into the jungle....oh wait

File: screenshot-webm.jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>34351691
this is fucking cool. it's flying so damn low. if you step frame by frame this webm you can see it in flight.

>>34351691
>how do you defend yourself against something like this if you don't have radars??

You uh, don't.

This is like asking how you defend yourself from a bullet speeding towards your face. You uh, don't. You get shot and you die.

>>34351793
It's flying very fast.

>>34351849
You're a very fast missile?

Theoretically you could engage the missiles with MANPADS if you knew exactly when and where the missiles would be coming and could find a vantage point from where you could spot the missiles early enough to get a lock on them.
Maybe if ISIS had someone with a cellphone and binoculars monitoring the ships and they knew what the target was, they could stop a small strike of one or two missiles.

>>34351784
The point is to win the fight, not look best doing it

>>34351691

@38s in, reminds me of my Rattlesnake launching it's cruise missiles in EVE

>>34351882
Thats my gender, yes.

what I meant is that the missile was flying very fast and they probably didn't know how tough the building was so they set the detonation timer to a more conservative value ... hence the overpenetration. But make no mistake... everyone in that building died.

>>34351886
>Theoretically you could engage the missiles with MANPADS

no. too slow. theoretically you could use some AA gun like the Oerlikon 35 mm and blow up a "screen" with proximity/programmed fuse AHEAD ammo and home the missle flies into your debris field and is killed.

File: Tunguska-M1.jpg (303KB, 1280x817px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1280x817px

>>34351691
by shoot them down

>>34351886
MANPADS use iron sight to aim the seeker

low flying cruise missile make aiming at them with iron sight imposibble

>>34351772
>Dispersion, concealment and fortification.
Hod do you run insurgency like that?

>>34351691
>how do you defend yourself against something like this if you don't have radars?

you do not congregate with other leadership, period. communications are all second hand, use infrequent couriers and use the lowest level of technology available when possible. the nva lost too much, the world takes notice. we are still finding out new and ingenious ways to isolate a person down to the smallest possible area, identify and make dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

imagine what capability you gain when you can rewind an image the scale of a city, zoom to a fine degree, and use computer ai to look for moved dirt and certain tracks (think tank tread)

the future of these missiles like op are smaller, more agile and carry a good deal more autonomy. it is always better to kill directly, why fuck around if it's not infrastructure? ideally, you fire once and you kill the desired target- common targets like light vehicles, homes/offices/corner buildings/garages/depots/police stations/checkpoints do not require 1t warheads

File: the most interesting syrian.jpg (1MB, 2918x1915px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2918x1915px

>>34351895
honestly I'd rather look good

>>34351972
The same way every Insurgency has?

>>34351886
>Theoretically you could engage the missiles with MANPADS

lmfao no way dude

the missiles moves so quickly that you wouldn't even have it in sight long enough to lock on. MANPAD's are designed to shoot down helicopters, not cruise missiles. to shoot down a cruise missile, you need radar-directed missiles specifically built for purpose.

>>34352017
Yeah, but they can still see you with satellites and drones.

>>34351925
forgot to say: this is actually how you do it if you have a radar. the oerlikon radar+gun is used that way. without the radar you'd have to eye ball it if you had spotters out a few tens of kms.

russians are doing fucking cool shit up in durkistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMY66zGIM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdO-pAf4LQ

>>34352050
>russians are doing fucking cool shit up in durkistan
>>34351691
>Russians fucking up ISIS with missiles

LIES! Russians are bombing innocent civilians and schools, hospitals and markets! Support FSA!

File: 1643533_-_main.jpg (60KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 752x423px

>>34351925
>>34351961
>>34352020
When I did conscription we did train on bringing down cruise missiles using upgraded RBS-70. It is hard as fuck and only really possible if you catch them coming in over the sea or you have good elevation and can track them over a larger time period but it is doable.
Of course the cruise missiles where always modelled to be high sub-sonic at best and we got direction and and early warning over radio.
If ISIS had Iglas at the cost it could work.

File: 1481649913846.gif (89KB, 250x252px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 250x252px

>>34352050