|
IBTimes’ “S-300 in Syria” News Nothing But Hot Air
The International Business Times creates fake news. Today it claims: Russia deploys S-300 anti-aircraft missile system in Syria after Sinai plane crash
Just days after a Russian civilian plane was suspected to have been shot down by a radical Islamist group, Moscow announced that after evaluating the threat it has deployed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system around the Latakia airbase in Syria to counter any threat.
The Russian defence ministry has said the deployment of the anti-aircraft system will not only secure its airbase in Syria, but also deter any attempt to hijack its warplanes.
Russia's Aerospace Forces Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Viktor Bondarev told Russian dailies on Thursday the country was taking all measures to secure its assets in Syria.
"We have studied all the possible threats," said Bondarev, adding that it has also sent in missile systems besides "fighter jets, attack aircraft, bomber aircraft, helicopters," Tass reported.
…
I would be astonished if Russia would now deploy the ground based long range air defense system S-300 to Syria. A complete S-300 unit is quite bulky with several radar and command vehicles plus the launcher vehicles and the logistic elements. There is also the Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva at sea near the Syrian coast which has an equivalent system with 64 missiles on board. There is no need to now deploy a similar land based system.
So where did IBTimes get that S-300 information from? It helpfully links to TASS at its source which says:
Russia sends missile systems to Syria to counter possible threats — air force head
Russia has deployed missile defense systems in Syria to counter a possible strike against its forces in the country and also to prevent attempts to hijack a warplane, Commander-in-Chief of Russia’s Aerospace Forces Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev has said.
"We have studied all the possible threats. We sent there not only fighter jets, attack aircraft, bomber aircraft, helicopters but also missile systems. As various force majeure circumstances may occur," Bondarev said in an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper published on Thursday.
There is nothing in the TASS bulletin that claims deployment of an S-300 long range air defense system.
We know since mid September that Russia deployed the short range air defense system Pansir-S1 (NATO designation SA-22 Greyhound) to Syria. Reuters reported on September 11:
Moscow is sending an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Syria, two Western officials and a Russian source said, as part of what the West believes is stepped-up military support for embattled President Bashar al-Assad.
The Western officials said the SA-22 system would be operated by Russian troops, rather than Syrians. The system was on its way to Syria but had not yet arrived.
Since then tracked as well as wheeled versions of the Pansir have been seen in Russian TV reports from the Russian airport in Syria.
The Russian general said nothing new. He just mentioned what Russia "sent" to Syria in the past. The TASS headline gets that wrong as the present "sends". And the IBTimes S-300 claim is a lie pulled from hot air and without any factual base.
But such scaremongering will surely reverb in the various Internet echo chambers. It will then be used as "justification" for the U.S. to throw more weapons to jihadists in Syria.
Oddly, having presented a suitable dataset does not seem to have resolved the matter. As Harry (at 88) rightly notes, the “splitting hairs over assumptions and… vague interpretations” continues.
So using the Wikidata, let’s do the math, Barflies. The College of Higher Knowledge is now in session, welcome to Historical Statistics 101. This material will be on the exam.
As I understand it, Marshall presents US Forces casualties and kills, Overman includes all combatants, as well as civilian deaths; apples, oranges, and maybe even plums and pears. So it seems that the combat death figures presented by the Wikis on the Eastern and Western Fronts are a suitable and manageable dataset.
First, let’s correct the data I presented above. The Western Front does not differentiate; all deaths are listed as “Axis” vs. “Allies.” The Eastern Front wiki conveniently broke out Germans vs. Romanians, Italians, etc. on the front. The relevant data is below.
Total Axis deaths on the Eastern Front —- 5,178,000 —- 94.42 pct.
Total Axis deaths on the Western Front —– 306,110 —– 5.58 pct.
Total, all fronts —————————- 5,484,110
Someone above noted an 80/20 split in German divisions deployed. The somewhat more rigorous nature of the war of extermination fought by the fascists in the East I believe would easily account higher losses there.
So the bottom line of the data here is — as noted quite early on, the Soviets “did the heavy lifting” in the Great Patriotic War.
This would actually make the relative American kill rate for the West a minor detail. For the Western front, the figure is conveniently broken down by pre- and post-Normandy.
pre-invasion Axis deaths —– 43,100
post-invasion Axis deaths — 263,000
Now, this being a simple stats course, and not a Historical Methodology seminar, we need to make a down and dirty assumption. No doubt, somewhere in the Internet ether we could find force levels and/or casualty figures. I could even dig it out of earlier posts.
But let us simplistically use the distribution of beaches on D-Day to attribute casualties. There were two U.S., two British, and one Canadian. Assuming the U.S. killed 40 pct. yields the following.
US. kills — 105,200
all others — 157,800
As a percent of total Axis deaths, Eastern and Western Fronts, the US killed 1.92 pct. of all Axis soldiers.
For liberal arts types for whom this is too much math, here’s a convenient article by a recent author on the makes clear the Soviet contriubution to the defeat of fascism, We must not forget how war was won.
German forces were defeated not by the sheer numbers (by 1943 millions of Soviet soldiers were dead or captive and the Red Army was desperate for men), but by the inventive tactics and sturdy technology of their enemy.
Astute readers will note that the Guardian published this 10 years ago; it’s even less of a popular position now, oddly enough….
Let me note, on the point that started all this, we were a victor in the Pacific. While our late contribution to the war against the Reich were merely helpful, American firepower and landing forces finally defeated Japan. The article cited above notes, however, we’re inclined to overlook the sacrifices made by China in her long war against Japanese aggression.
Class dismissed and the bar reopened! The mode of the dataset of all MoA drink orders for the house!
Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 7 2015 16:51 utc | 89
|
