Could a S-200 destroy a Tomahawk 30-50 meters about the ground?
Could a S-200 destroy a Tomahawk 30-50 meters about the ground?
Jacob Hughes
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
wikimapia.org
wikimapia.org
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
wikimapia.org
rt.com
vimeo.com
twitter.com
Liam Gutierrez
*above
Evan Edwards
The real question isn't if you can blow it up in the air but if you can survive the blast if you blow it up in the air.
Sage for cuckan tier OP
Jaxon Powell
Russia does not exist.
Have you, personally, been to Russia? Have you seen it?
If not, then you must agree there is no direct evidence for its existence, unless you take the word of others. But why would you trust them? Such organizations as NASA claim to have been to Russia, do you trust them? There are flights supposedly going to Russia, but they are instead going to an outpost in Ireland. After all, Russia is supposedly mostly potato: quite a coincidence it looks a lot like areas in the yurop where few people travel, isn't it? We have established there is no reliable evidence for Russia. It has not been personally verified, and those who claim to live there are either shills or don't understand that they are in Ireland.There is also motive: shekels that would be sent to the country is instead added to the jews coffers.
Isaac Nelson
Hit rate would be very low, since it could only see the missile at point blank range.
But a Pantsir could do it easily, and Syria has plenty of those.
Aaron Murphy
...
Dylan Reyes
Ok Kant.
Jonathan Ortiz
Russia released the list of what they used:
Pantsir-S1 - 25 missiles hit 23 targets
Buk-M2E - 29 missiles hit 24 targets
Osa - 11 hit 5
S-125 - 13 hit 5
Strela-10 - 5 hit 3
Kvadrat - 21 hit 11
S-200 - 8 hit 0
Connor Perry
It's been three days. Where are the pictures of the downed Tomahawks?
Hudson Gutierrez
Probably not.
What's most interesting are after strike pictures.
The 1st target is hard to tell because well there was 3 building there are none (but those were classic civilian building not reinforced or anything… Who really believes they fired 76 cruise missiles with 1 ton warheads to destroy 3 buildings? Especially since, while destroyed the destruction is nowhere near as total some people pretend youtube.com
2nd target- Him Shinshar CW storage.
Location- wikimapia.org
Number of missiles used according to NATO.
8 Storm Shadow (UK air)
9 tomahawks (US naval)
2 SCALP-EG (FR air)
3 MdCN (FR naval)
22 total
Number of impacts = 8.
Number of impacts that actually hit something = 5.
5 out of 22 is the real score.
3rd target - Alleged Him Shinshar CW storage
wikimapia.org
Number of missiles used according to NATO.
7 SCALP-EG (FR air)
7 total
Number of impacts = 1 maybe 2?
Number of impacts that actually hit something = 0?
0 out of 7 might be the real score.
It's always hard to tell the underground effects but AFAICT there is no reason to believe the 3rd target has been affected at all. All the secondaries buildings are intact, there is no sign of a serious cave in, even the airshafts covers (small cubes with roofs that appear white) are still in place which is a sign the explosion didn't reach the inside (or the overpressure wave in the bunker would have blow them out).
Add the fact that the western press previous to the airstrike clearly mentioned 8 targets (archive.is
They fired 100+ missiles at 8 targets, they only hit two undefended secondary target and a third with minimal damage.