+and-then Posted April 22, 2017 #151 Share Posted April 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said: You're working on a ton of assumptions here. Why would you assume we would have heard more and more reports about it? The media has been horrific in their coverage of the events over there especially if you're only taking in western media. Why would you assume the airfield has no fuel pumps? The US warned Russia the attack was coming plenty in advance for them to have warned Assad and for the Syrians to have moved some fuel resources into bunkers or just a couple miles down the road. Ditto for munitions. Crew quarters? You mean tents , we are talking about the military afterall. Somewhere around half the missiles launched actually hit the base (23 i think). That base has 41 bunkers like this one That means that even if every one of those missiles that hit the base hit a bunker there are still 18 above ground bunkers that based on simple math could not have been hit by a missile , although i do concede they could have been damaged collaterally. Thats just the above ground ones built to store aircraft and does not include below ground bunkers or other munitions bunkers. Maybe we didn't hit every one of those structures because only 20 or so had AIRCRAFT in them? The Tomahawk is a long proven accurate weapon, Farmer. It strikes within meters of it's target, not miles. You're thinking of Kaliber missiles. The idea that 20 or more of a salvo of Tomakawks would miss by miles is ridiculous. The decision not to crater the runways was sound. No use spending millions to do damage that can be corrected with a guy on a bulldozer in a day. As to Russia "warning us", they can go pound sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now