Damage assessment of strikes in Syria by NATO; what was struck?

[raptor22]

They didn't claim that 'chemical weapons' were actually stored in the Barzah scientific research centre. However, they suspected that research carried out in this facility is crucial to chemical weapons program of the regime so it should be taken out.


Damage is substantial when you look at it in this way:

One can also notice that this structure is/was huge.

I suspect that they did not use high-explosive warheads in this case; they didn't wanted to set the entire neighborhood on fire.

@Gomig-21


You guys are simply trolling at this stage.

We are talking about precision strikes here, not carpet bombing initiatives to level entire neighbourhoods.

I suppose that the Russian and Iranian criteria of success/damage is to set entire neighborhood on fire since both have shortage of precision strike weapons.

As they claimed:

"The air attack targeted a Syrian chemical and biological weapons research, development, and production center in Barzah, Syria"
​

The immediate area around the Barzeh facility is very densely packed:

 

[Politico]

On every occasion that Assad and the Russians win some significant victory, there is a chemical attack in Syria. And the blame for those chemical attacks is always laid on Assad. Somehow, western media and the West seem to be pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world. To fire 100 missiles into Syria is reckless and with little or no regard for the lives of the Syrian people residing in Syria. If the USA and its allies can fire 100 missiles into Syria, what stops their allies in Syria from unleashing chemical weapons on the people of Syria?

 

[LeGenD]

As they claimed:

"The air attack targeted a Syrian chemical and biological weapons research, development, and production center in Barzah, Syria"
​

The immediate area around the Barzeh facility is very densely packed:

View attachment 466851

Yes, but chemical weapons were not stored there.

And it makes sense not to employ high-explosive warheads in order to minimize collateral damage in a densely populated region. Strikes also occurred at a time when majority of people would be asleep.

I appreciate the fact that NATO took utmost care when striking at infrastructure associated with chemical weapons program of Assad-led regime.

Clearly many missed



They knew many missiles would not hit the target or get intercepted. You don’t need that many missiles to hit so few targets.

Dimensions of Tomahawk cruise missile:

TL = 20.3 feet
D = 21 inches

Dimensions of JASSM-ER:

TL = 13.9 feet
D = 25 inches

Now, keeping in view the sheer size of that compound, every missile would have struck! And there would still be room for more. Choice of warheads seem to be those which are not high-explosive.

At your face: "Stop embarrassing yourself."

No the French got there missiles intercepted as per photos of wreckage from French missiles, many other missiles just hit empty fields. Technically the French didn’t participate when nothing they lauched actually managed to hit a damn thing.

The French struck a camouflaged CW bunker, Russian Einstein.

Before:

After:

We can clearly see the target being flattened/decimated.

PS why is everyone avoiding this question, why are there no civilian casualties if many of these biological and chemical factories got hit in populated areas. Does the coalition use magic missiles that turn toxic chemical clouds into rainbows? Everyone knows who the real lyers are

Due to following factors:

1. Precision strikes
2. Timing of strikes (4 am approx.)
3. Research facility in Damascus did not contain chemical weapons
4. Him Shimshar chemical weapons storage facility near Homs is/was not located near a densely populated region

At your face again yet again: "Stop embarrassing yourself."

---

Now explain to us why Russians don't protect their allies in the face of an onslaught.

 

[Vergennes]

No the French got there missiles intercepted as per photos of wreckage from French missiles, many other missiles just hit empty fields. Technically the French didn’t participate when nothing they lauched actually managed to hit a damn thing.

The Russians claimed they didn't witness any French participation despite France deploying Rafale,Mirage 2000-5,AWACS and several tankers. France showed proof of missile firing into Syria. (Striking near Homs exactly)

Now the Russians are coming with other versions of the story.

As for the SCALP they "intercepted",it's most likely part of the wreckage of the missile after it successfully hit its target. As this part doesn't explode,it proves nothing.

It would be good if the Syrians provided pictures of the surroundings of the wreckage.... which they won't do probably.

 

[zzzz]

The Russians claimed they didn't witness any French participation despite France deploying Rafale,Mirage 2000-5,AWACS and several tankers. France showed proof of missile firing into Syria. (Striking near Homs exactly)

Now the Russians are coming with other versions of the story.

As for the SCALP they "intercepted",it's most likely part of the wreckage of the missile after it successfully hit its target. As this part doesn't explode,it proves nothing.

View attachment 466862

It would be good if the Syrians provided pictures of the surroundings of the wreckage.... which they won't do probably.

Dude, its Pentagon who claimed that France launched 7 Scalp missiles against that target, not Russia.

 

[mike2000 is back]

I think it was just a message we were sending the Syrian regime. It's more of a symbolic measure than anything else,otherwise it would have been much more broad and widespread with Syrian military being targeted consistently all over the country.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

I think it was just a message we were sending the Syrian regime. It's more of a symbolic measure than anything else,otherwise it would have been much more broad and widespread with Syrian military being targeted consistently all over the country.

Exactly and don't understand why people are even talking about which missiles hit where, number of missiles,their effectiveness etc. The message is more to tell Russia that you are not only the boss there, we can do what ever we like to do as well. Its highly likely that the sites which have been destroyed were never a chemical making complexes or atleast the ones from where the 'alleged' chemical attack had weapons from. But the message is more to warned Russia. Apparently Trump doesn't look much interested into Syria but things have quickly gone rough after UK gas attack by Russian spy agency.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I wonder where is chemical leak after flattening those chemical weapon storage?

 

[BATMAN]

Why not destroy airbases as well?

I wonder where is chemical leak after flattening those chemical weapon storage?

It may be that non of the Asad's infamous chemical stock piles are destroyed, all this might be a drama to fool the world.

Unless i see destruction of airfields, i don't believe Syrians are safe from Butcher al Asad.

 

[LeGenD]

Why not destroy airbases as well?

This was not the objective of these strikes but they struck one in As-Suwayda province.

https://twitter.com/x/status/985120140395208704

Fires could be seen there.

 

[BATMAN]

@LeGenD thanks.
I know the objective was to destroy the stock piles of chemical weapons... so how far they are successful?

i think, US did hit some military buildings in reasonably controlled manner but non was chemical weapon stock, which i believe are still intact and are underground.
What was required was to destroy airfields.
I'm bit awestruck with choice of targets.

 

[LeGenD]

@LeGenD thanks.
I know the objective was to destroy the stock piles of chemical weapons... so how far they are successful?

i think, US did hit some military buildings in reasonably controlled manner but non was chemical weapon stock, which i believe are still intact and are underground.
What was required was to destroy airfields.
I'm bit awestruck with choice of targets.

Bro,

They destroyed the Shin Shamshir CW storage facility near Homs; its bunker was also taken out in the strikes. This facility was constructed in 2017 per independent sources. Good catch, IMO.

They admitted that Syrian CW program is not completely finished but they have send a powerful message with these strikes. Assad-led regime would be really stupid to employ chemical weapons in the battlefield again.

 

[Lucky Breeze]

if u.s nuke Syria radiation will also badly affect israel as it has less strategic depth and is close to syria .u.s will never do this as their whole nukes are under jewish control

No offense but why your mind always circulate around nukes?

 

[The SC]

How many times have we heard the Usraelis saying they've hit and destroyed these same sites.. this sounds like killing the same man many times....very strange!

 

[ptldM3]

Yes, but chemical weapons were not stored there.

Try again.

The US admitted that they were used for storage or at least they fought they were. One US official even admitted that there should have been more civilian casualties from the fallout of bombing those facilities. This just proves several things, the US and it’s allies didn’t give a damn about civilians being gassed once they hit those factories and the US proved again that they lied. Of course it’s possible Assad shoved those weapons up his ***, or at least that will be the next excuse the coalition will use.



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.amp.html

WASHINGTON — The United States and European allies launched airstrikes on Friday night against Syrian research, storage and military targets as President Trump sought to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attacknear Damascus last weekend that killed more than 40 people.




https://www.haaretz.com/amp/middle-...rump-vows-to-keep-pressure-on-assad-1.5995417


Some U.S. officials, however, are saying that the sites may have been inactive, as indicated by the fact that there were no casualties or chemical leaks from the facilities.

I appreciate the fact that NATO took utmost care when striking at infrastructure associated with chemical weapons program of Assad-led regime.

Some US officials were baffled as to why there was no casualties from bombings those facilities due to “chemical leaks”. (See above) Which proves they didn’t actually care. They were more interested in chest pounding.

The French struck a camouflaged CW bunker, Russian Einstein.

Before:

After:

We can clearly see the target being flattened/decimated.

What are you seeing that no one else is? Where is the proof that camouflage was used?

There is zero indication that anything was hit. No debris whatsoever. All I see is the ground being hit.

Those missile really showed the ground who is boss. But being a western fanboy you will claim those missiles hit secret camouflage areas

Now explain to us why Russians don't protect their allies in the face of an onslaught.

How many times did the US protect their allies when Russian cruise missiles and jets pounded “rebels”?