AS someone who studies war and conflicts I wanted to see the preliminary pics of the result of the latest missile attack on a Syrian airbase.
I enjoy analyzing stuff while most Americans are busy hugging our “smart bombs” as things of beauty…..sorry but….59 missiles and this is the best damage they could do? I believe someone is blowing smoke.
I found some and wanted to share them with my readers…
This satellite photo from the Department of Defense shows a battle damage assessment image of Shayrat airfield. (HANDOUT / AFP/Getty Images)
This satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe shows destroyed buildings on the southeast side of the Shayrat air base in Syria. (DigitalGlobe via AP)
These photos are preliminary and others will surface eventually, probably when the humpf wears off the strike story, but according to the report the US fired 59 missiles with 1000 lb of explosive in each….should there not be more damage than these photos show?
I would like to point out that these are not the ones they use to assess damage in an after raid breakdown….but it does not look as if 59 missiles hit this spot to me.
Either the missile warheads were under-powered or some of them went AWOL on the way to the target.
LIke I said I am sure that there are better pics but we will not see them for awhile…but these look like cherry bombs were used instead of Tomahawks….have a great day my friend…come back soon….chuq
Yes. 59 cruise missiles at one target seems to be an awfully lot and then reports that Syria was basically using the airfield again just a couple of days after the attack?
Somewhere I remember watching, likely the History Channel, about munitions testing and I recall a number of shots showing some damn missile entering into what looked like a 100 foot square solid reinforced concrete wall like it was butter and exploding when it passed through. Now I am seeing a number of these so-called “hardened hangars” at this Syrian base, which in no way look like 100 foot square concrete cubes, are simply damaged and not destroyed.
Honestly, when I first heard there were 59 Tomahawks on their way my first thought was, why do they need so many? It’s just a couple runways with some buildings and concrete shelters. But, hey, what do I know.. I’m just an armchair strategist at best. This wasn’t any sort of a strategic strike.. just a political move. Oh well. Sometime you just have to default that someone else knows what they are doing (obviously NOT Trump… but maybe someone in the Pentagon).
AWOL is what I’ve been thinking from the pictures I’ve seen on the news, either that or the 59 was an outright LIE! Maybe we have some, as of last week, unaccounted missiles stashed somewhere. ~~dru~~
I think the answer to all of this can be traced back to Roswell, NM.
I mean, could Trump be a shape-shifter that didn’t shape or shift properly in the transporter?
Loading...
I’ll send that to “Ancient Aliens” they might use it since they are running out of stuff to film…LOL chuq
Loading...
My initial thought was that 59 was a strange number. Why not 50? Or better still, 60? The damage looks more like 5 missiles to my untrained eye. After remembering photos from cruise missile strikes on Baghdad, I would go so far as to say that they may not even have been used on this airfield. Surely 59 such missiles would have totally obliterated the place?
My own guess is that the number stated was so that they could re-order that many again, at an estimated cost of $100 million for the coffers of arms industry. Then again, I’m very cynical.
Best wishes, Pete.
Strange how that’s the question I was asked by people, whether or not Dump doing the air strikes was a good thing. Great, I’m being asked policy now, and it’s something I don’t know much about. Hell, I’m still trying to sort out all the players of this catastro-phuck and whose side we’re supposedly on. I’ve reserved judgement because with anything related to this administration, the story could change 15 times in three days, so I tend to wait 3 days. I need to go dig up some old bomb footage and see how much damage can be done by those missiles…I love my war documentaries.
One of my posts recently has a list of the major players….these photos do not show the damage 59 missiles would have done….I debate that the number actually used was less or these missile are not as smart as we were lead. chuq
well, you know what they say–computers are only as smart as the people who program them…and if somebody (like Dump) decided to play around in the sandbox because his brain’s so yuge…hmm…
Loading...
I blame the keyboard…the damn thing cannot spell worth a damn…LOL chuq
Loading...
Numbers notwithstanding, I saw NO strikes indicated on ANY of the runways, which, as one raised on military bases, I would think would be the primary targets. Secondary targets would be as many planes as possible, then any fuel/ammo storage areas…. I saw no indications of many planes, or anything much at all like that being hit…
Not terribly efficient, if only 55-60% of the launched missiles got through, & only 5-10% of those caused any significant damage.. Not very ‘smart’, in any sense; certainly not a mission to be proud of, even for a war monger…
Reblogged this on O LADO ESCURO DA LUA.
As always the Re-blogs are appreciated….please have a good week my friend….chuq
I thought I saw an unsubstantiated rumor that the Russians shot down some of the missiles. I would take that with a grain of salt.
I saw that report and I also saw one the said only 39 made it to target but no confirmation as of yet…..does that look like much damage to you? chuq
Given how the airfield was back in operation within 24 hours, certianly not.
Then we ask…what was the purpose? They just wasted about $1 million each for the missiles…..I guess the M-IC will be jerking off. chuq
Well, let’s just say I’ve been calling this Operation Shut Up about Russia.
Good one! Russia thing has been a bit slow lately….chuq
I had similar thoughts.
LIke I said I am sure that there are better pics but we will not see them for awhile…but these look like cherry bombs were used instead of Tomahawks….have a great day my friend…come back soon….chuq
Yes. 59 cruise missiles at one target seems to be an awfully lot and then reports that Syria was basically using the airfield again just a couple of days after the attack?
I am still working on this analysis….more to come….thanx….chuq
Somewhere I remember watching, likely the History Channel, about munitions testing and I recall a number of shots showing some damn missile entering into what looked like a 100 foot square solid reinforced concrete wall like it was butter and exploding when it passed through. Now I am seeing a number of these so-called “hardened hangars” at this Syrian base, which in no way look like 100 foot square concrete cubes, are simply damaged and not destroyed.
Honestly, when I first heard there were 59 Tomahawks on their way my first thought was, why do they need so many? It’s just a couple runways with some buildings and concrete shelters. But, hey, what do I know.. I’m just an armchair strategist at best. This wasn’t any sort of a strategic strike.. just a political move. Oh well. Sometime you just have to default that someone else knows what they are doing (obviously NOT Trump… but maybe someone in the Pentagon).
AWOL is what I’ve been thinking from the pictures I’ve seen on the news, either that or the 59 was an outright LIE! Maybe we have some, as of last week, unaccounted missiles stashed somewhere. ~~dru~~
Maybe the 20 missing were re-targeted…or maybe they were just sent off into space for later use….chuq
I think the answer to all of this can be traced back to Roswell, NM.
I mean, could Trump be a shape-shifter that didn’t shape or shift properly in the transporter?
I’ll send that to “Ancient Aliens” they might use it since they are running out of stuff to film…LOL chuq
My initial thought was that 59 was a strange number. Why not 50? Or better still, 60? The damage looks more like 5 missiles to my untrained eye. After remembering photos from cruise missile strikes on Baghdad, I would go so far as to say that they may not even have been used on this airfield. Surely 59 such missiles would have totally obliterated the place?
My own guess is that the number stated was so that they could re-order that many again, at an estimated cost of $100 million for the coffers of arms industry. Then again, I’m very cynical.
Best wishes, Pete.
I will give them 12 hits that I can see…cynic or not you are probably more accurate than not….chuq
Strange how that’s the question I was asked by people, whether or not Dump doing the air strikes was a good thing. Great, I’m being asked policy now, and it’s something I don’t know much about. Hell, I’m still trying to sort out all the players of this catastro-phuck and whose side we’re supposedly on. I’ve reserved judgement because with anything related to this administration, the story could change 15 times in three days, so I tend to wait 3 days. I need to go dig up some old bomb footage and see how much damage can be done by those missiles…I love my war documentaries.
One of my posts recently has a list of the major players….these photos do not show the damage 59 missiles would have done….I debate that the number actually used was less or these missile are not as smart as we were lead. chuq
well, you know what they say–computers are only as smart as the people who program them…and if somebody (like Dump) decided to play around in the sandbox because his brain’s so yuge…hmm…
I blame the keyboard…the damn thing cannot spell worth a damn…LOL chuq
Numbers notwithstanding, I saw NO strikes indicated on ANY of the runways, which, as one raised on military bases, I would think would be the primary targets. Secondary targets would be as many planes as possible, then any fuel/ammo storage areas…. I saw no indications of many planes, or anything much at all like that being hit…
Not terribly efficient, if only 55-60% of the launched missiles got through, & only 5-10% of those caused any significant damage.. Not very ‘smart’, in any sense; certainly not a mission to be proud of, even for a war monger…
gigoid, the dubious
I think it was more to change the dialog in the media than to cause damage…get the news talking about anything but Russia and the cronies…..chuq