|
farraday posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnjiQeUrnD4&feature=channel_video_title Is that tank a PT-76 light amphibious tank? Doesn't quite look big enough to be a T-55 or similar MBT.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Hmm, yes I noticed that the turret didn't quite match the PT-76. Must have been the angle of the tank wreckage making it look smaller too. Doubt Libya would have something like a T-80. "The IISS estimated tank numbers in 2009 as 2,025: T-72 - 200; 115 in store; T-62 - 100; 70 in store; T-55 - 500; 1,040 T-54/T-55 in store. Russian official sources reported in 2010 that T-72s would be modernised with help from Russia. 750 BTR-50 and BTR-60s were also reported by the IISS. The IISS estimated there were 50 BRDM-2 and 70 EE-9 Cascavel reconnaissance vehicles, 1,000 BMP-1s, plus BMDs. Other reported wheeled vehicles in service include 100 EE-11 Urutu, and Czechoslovak OT-64 SKOT." I wonder how many of these are still in Quadaffis hands. Lost to rebels/defections or NATO bombings. He gotta be running out of armoured vehicles pretty soon considering the amount of strike missions (even if many of those were against other things like ammo dumps and SAMs as well). Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 14:02 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It's not entirely without a reason why T-72 has earned the nickname 'Jack In The Box': there is so much explosives in the 125mm gun's autoloader carusel that in the case of a penetration the chances of the (relatively light weight) turret rocketing into the air are very good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAnYYj9orQ comments @Theonlysweetman This tank's turret was probably carrying a simulated load of live ammunition. "It's not entirely without a reason why T-72 has earned the nickname 'Jack In The Box': there is so much explosives in the 125mm gun's autoloader carusel that in the case of a penetration the chances of the (relatively light weight) turret rocketing into the air are very good." -Neonen SA Forums. fvckingtest 2 hours ago 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
Jim Bont posted:Warning, this is tangential so I posted it here rather than D&D. I did a double-take yesterday when I found out Sweden has contributed aircraft to the no-fly zone in Libya. I have Swedish nationality but have been living overseas for most of my life, so haven't been keeping up with events there. I'm almost as surprised as I was with OBL's death, this is a pretty radical departure from its historical foreign policy. Along with ISAF it seems like it's now a de facto NATO member? Anyway I try to keep tabs on threads here for stuff like this, it's more informative than most news sites. If someone from Sweden could post any good editorials or TV debates about the deployment that are online I'd appreciate it, or for that matter any reports of combat operations seeing as it hasn't happened since Napoleon. To expand on this from a few pages back a bit: The 8 Gripens deployed down there (at some airbase in... Sicily?) and a tanker/transport hercules have flown over 104 missions (7th april - 12th may, up to 136+ more recently) and apparantly supply about 25% of all aerial recon pictures (Ca 65 000 pictures, up to 72 000 more recently) for the NATO forces. They do not bomb anything as they are not authorized to use weapons other than in self-defence. 2 Gripens suffered some weird windshield damage (clear weather, sand not related apparently) and are getting rotated back to Sweden. If you know Swedish you can get more information here: http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/Internationella-insatser/Libyen-UP/ That ship NATO bombed in harbour a while back was a Koni-class frigate.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
You know it's a bit interesting how high expectations they have from those Apache helicopters. All... 4 of them? It's almost like they expect them to win the war single handedly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Okay, that sounds more reasonable for a bombing campaign of this size. It was just that first set of numbers seemed a bit small. I'm assuming that's for a single location like Brega? Then again, with air campaigns you can never be too certain on just how much stuff you've actually destroyed versus decoys, near misses, damaged but repaired vehicles etc. Yugoslavia '99 springs to mind. Over 10 000 munitions dropped, with around 20-30% being precision guided and resulting in between 22-600 knocked out tanks/APC/artillery pieces out of 2000 deployed armoured vehicles. Looks like concensus is leaning towards a sub 100 number for AVs. Even if modern bombing is four times as effective it could take awhile. Granted, Libya is a lot weaker than Yugoslavia was and the rebels are pretty strong so you got pressure coming from two directions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:The Libyan army entered the civil war with 1,500 tanks, another 1,500 APCs and IFVs and 2,500 artillery pieces. One wonders how many are left with that level of strikes every single day for a good six months now. If anything, that NATO has been able to strike with such intensity and not suffering a single casualty proves just how far military technology has advanced from the Cold War era equipment Gadaffi fields. Not that many tanks or APCs have been hit, maybe 1/3 or so of those numbers if we count every reported hit as a "kill". Then there's a bunch that have been seized by the rebels so... what remains is probably in a pretty shoddy state though. As for Egypt's military: Maybe they think their Abrams will give them some of that american war mojo? Actually, I wouldn't underestimate the Egyptian army. It's not the 1960ies anymore. Those 1150+ M1A2 SEP Standard MBT's with American trained crews can probably go toe-to-toe with the Israelis on the ground. The air war is another matter, but the Egyptians do have the Patriot missile batteries too (even if the Israelis got the specs on those they'd have to be drat careful). I wouldn't put it past them to put up a competent fight for a couple of weeks/months until another cease-fire and peace accord is signed (whatever either side's hardliners might think of their chances for total victory).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
Zappatista posted:It differentiates them from base-fired fuckoff-big SAMs. They're Man-portable (MANP of MANPAD). But MANPAD...eeewww. It's like the time IIRC the Russians designated a new missile by the codename of FAGOT. Did somebody call for a Fagot?  Oh right, the americans did: Mig Alley Everyday  Those Igla's could do some damage against NATO helicopters, let alone defenseless civilian aircraft coming in for landing or something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I'm really hoping I can get an interview with one of the members of the Libyan Women's Platform for Peace next. Seems to be from Homs though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
COOKIEMONSTER posted:I don't see why this would be. Americans by-and-large seem to love war and rally(at least in the short term) to whatever leader brought them into that war. I see nothing but political bonus points for Obama if he were to send fighter jets into Syria and say "hey guys we are going to do the same thing here that we did in Libya." Americans love money (or rather, their economy) even more. As long as that is in the crapper, everyone otherwise so gung-ho about intervention will be ambivalent at best. Possible casualties and a long occupation is another deterent, but probably not as much considering the people in power could just point at Libya and say "It will be just like that! No problem!". The sitting president will always have to consider the worst-case scenario in an election year. War is anything but predictable in the short term. Which is probably why they are stalling on Iran as well. The US military isn't strong enough to go after both Iran and Syria before the withdrawal from Afghanistan is complete, so they have to pick their targets carefully. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:The US does not intend to "go after Iran". 1) There is no current popular uprising in Iran or revolution. The green movement wasn't big enough and was crushed too quickly, 2) Iran would be Iraq multiplied by 10, 3) Iranian military isn't as terrible as Iraq, 4) Russia and China would flip their poo poo, 5) The US doesn't intend to go after Syria and never went after Libya. NATO/UN/Arab League does not equal the US. Now, if things changed within the country or middle-east drastically, that's a different story. But that's all wishful thinking. I was thinking more about a strike on their nuclear plants (or supporting an Israeli strike), not an outright invasion. A no-fly zone over Syria that's mainly enforced by the US would limit/remove that option (however remote). Which would (at least in the Washington Planners) minds give Iran a freer hand to do whatever it is they fear they would do. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:idk, it doesn't seem like they're risking much by escalating hostilities, since the whole potential for conflict rests on israeli initiative. it could be a half-assed attempt to gain international validation, but i hardly see that happening. besides, with the situation deteriorating in syria, i hardly see iran as capable to respond to any pre-emptive attack conducted by israel (do correct me if i'm wrong). like, the israelis could do a quick bombing of whatever the hell they wanted and at most risk some heightened threat by hezbollah or whatever - that would seem like a reasonable trade, other than the whole might-just-trigger-world-war-iii thing Iran could still fire all their long range missiles at Israel. That might not be worth it. You can read this and this for why flying your air force into Iran to strike a bunch of targets might not be entirely hazardous free. Their capabilities aren't well known but they certainly got some semi-modern stuff out there. Israel might not want to risk a significant portion of their air force at a time when many of it's neighbours are having meltdowns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Can't look like a revolutionary badass with a helmet bro  That or they want to be able to fade into civilian crowds easier, combat fatigues or not. But I don't think that would protect anyone anymore, considering the government forces are shooting at unarmed civilians too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:and this video shows weapons captured by the FSA ...Are those toy/model weapons? 
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Nah, looks like full-size RPGs and a poo poo-load of rockets (in plastic bags, to preserve them) to me. Something about how the camera moves/is zoomed in that makes it look like it's a tiny little doll house full of itty bitty RPGs. Maybe it's just the perspective playing tricks on my eyes.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
Wasn't that early video of some middle aged pro-gardening solid snake guy taking out a stationary BMP from Syria? They've been pretty good with taking out armored vehicles with RPGs and IEDs since the start. Guess they might have been in the military or defected, so they'd know what would work and why they are ignoring T-55 and T-62 tanks in preference of lighter stuff that they can actually hurt reliably.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
I read that as "Cairo al Shatner" at first, and got all sad the best candidate got disqualified 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
That and the 30 000 russian citizens living in Syria from ye olden days. Got to protect them or look weak at home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
I keep seeing the Guardian write about the notorious M25 Gunship, but when will we see them deploy their MiG 28 fighters?  Jokes aside, they probably mean to say the "Mi-25", as in the Mi-24D export version, but I wouldn't call the "M25" notorious when I get 0 google hits and have to dig through the wikipedia page on Mi-24 variants to find it. (Maybe if you are Solid Snake) Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
The conscription thing is why I think there might just be a couple of guys in the FSA who DO know how to handle an SA-7 or similar. Now if they've actually managed to get their hands on functional missiles or got them in the right place when they need them is another matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
I'm a bit surprised that food distribution is taking place at all, don't they practically have to smuggle food for the entire country in over the various borders by now? Let alone get it to the central provinces. I'd expect more refugees as food supplies dwindle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
To be fair, it was an awesome shirt and evidently Egyptians take their laundry very seriously
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Really, none of the arab countries appear to have armies with enough spare parts and supplies for more than a few weeks of intensive combat (well, maybe Saddam dide pre-1991 but he had his own tank factories too). Is Syria producing any of its own weapon systems?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Is the situation in Aleppo really anything unexpected from what we talked about before the battle got going? Like, an article saying the city is surrounded and that the regime have finally managed to push into one neighbourhood, with the usual heavy artillery bombardment -everywhere- is pretty much exactly what to expect from previous patterns? From what I've read the Rebels have maaaybe taken a couple of hundred casualties out of 3000 dudes (and whatever has arrived/left since the battle began) yet commentators are going all  If the rebels could get out of loving Damascus after being "surrounded" I think they can manage leaving Aleppo whenever they well drat please. Wasn't the whole POINT of this little operation to lure the regime forces inside the city where their firepower is diminished and they can be hit from all sides? Trying to hold them on the outskirts of the city would just be dumb. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Aug 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
It probably got more to do with the Arab spring / Green revolution type things than protecting the nuclear program (although that probably factored in). The security of the state itself comes first, I'd wager.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Worst-case scenario is that Hollywood catches wind of this war and makes it into a Sandra Bullock movie of a naive American traveler who falls in love with Assad's handsome yet war-weary lieutenant. So Tlass will finally have a new job?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Does it crash? I don't think any of the videos show that, picture or sound wise. It appear to just keep flying, but maybe it goes out of control eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
According to the Syrian air force wiki they do not have any MiG-27, but a couple of dozen MiG-23BN for ground attack roles. Which would be this one: MiG-23BN ("Flogger-H") Produced since 1973, the MiG-23BN was based on MiG-23B, but had the same R-29-300 engine as contemporary fighter variants. They were also fitted with "type 3" wings. There were other minor changes in electronics and equipment, and some changes were made during its long production run. Serial production lasted until 1985, with 624 built. Most of them were exported, as the Soviets always viewed it as an interim type and only a small number served in Frontal Aviation regiments. As usual, a downgraded version was sold to Third World customers. This variant proved to be fairly popular and effective. The most distinctive identifying feature between the MiG-23B and MiG-23BN was that the former had the dielectric head just above the pylon, which was removed from the MiG-23BN. It can carry up to 3000 kg of bombs, and has a 23mm cannon with 200 rounds. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Aug 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Plenty of those nuclear facilities are hardened / dug into mountains that would take some serious bunker busters (well maybe short of the nuclear kind... maybe) to ensure they were out of action. And that's taking into account that they'd know exactly were all those facilities were etc. That's the problem with stating your objectives before the war, Iran knows exactly what the enemy will be gunning for, likely approaches etc. Hope those pilot skills include "bulletproof" because they are gonna need to run some serious gauntlets of AA guns, missiles and kitchen sinks. Losing a good chunk of your air force while pissing off your neighbours (who aren't exactly in a stable state right now) even further might not be the brightest idea. It all comes down to if Israel really think it's worth it, not only in military cost and risk, but whatever the Iranians may fling back at them with all those strategic missiles of their own. Plenty of nasty things in the world even if not accounting for nukes. I guess the question is: Are they (Israel) feeling lucky?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Eh, Iran does have a pretty big weapon industry that produces homegrown copies (and improvements) of everything from small MANPADS to bigger systems ranging from the S-75 to S-300 (not quite done yet) SAM systems, and even the RIM-66 Standard and upgraded MIM-23 Hawk. Stuff like Mesbah 1, a rotating quad mounted ZU-23-2 system with CIWS like capabilities, can apparently shoot down low flying cruise missiles too. Tor 1M aint' no joke either. I'd say Iran got better poo poo than Iraq ever had. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Iran's domestic arms industry thinks that slapping an extra vertical stab on a '70s era F-5 is the height of aerospace innovation. I'd take "cyber attacks shut down 70's era mobile SAM sites" with a grain of salt, why would those thing even be uplinked to the internet - or have USB slots? Maybe they can mess with some command and control abilities, coordination and that kind of stuff but they aren't gonna be shutting down missiles, radars or guns. Sure, Iran's missiles are probably nothing too high-tech (under the assumption that they just give everything up to wikipedia - in the end we really won't know just how effective those upgrades are until they see action). But together with their conventional AA guns pack enough of them in the right spot and they are gonna get some hits and make any approach harder. If you are attacking some mountain fortress (where most the important bits are spread out underground where you don't quite know where exactly) are you really gonna be flying that high to get a good view and do stand-off attacks? Pretty much inviting every SAM battery within range to take a shot at you. F-16 and F-15 aren't exactly stealthy, no matter how many ECM pods they slap on and they'll only have so much fuel (and time) to waste on evasive poo poo. Despite having no less than 2 250 aircraft during Desert Storm, in very similar tech disparity level (but much more favorable distances & terrain), America still lost 43 aircraft to surface fired weapons (SAMs & AAA) and 4-6 aircraft confirmed shot down in air-air combat (!) And unlike America during desert storm, the Israeli's can't really blot out the sun with aircraft (So to speak) - they got a limited number of aircraft with the right range and payload capacity (if they are gonna haul around bunker busters) and they can't leave home unguarded, so it's gonna be a hundred or so aircraft at most in any raid (and if they are gonna launch several raids, that's gonna put further dampers on the longevity of the campaign). The equation works out pretty well when you have thousands of aircraft to throw at a limited number of old SAM sites and missiles, but not quite so well when it's the reverse - yeah sure, they can probably go all crazy and dodge 12+ missiles per plane but are they gonna be able to keep their bombs on and complete their missions afterwards? Can't really get around the fact that any campaign would have to be a long rear end way from Israel, limited loiter time and all that (which really limit SEAD options) - against a big rear end nation where all the targets are in difficult terrain, hardened and probably not all pinned down exactly - against an intact AA network ranging from guns and missiles to well, an air force (outdated tech or not, it seem to be at least in working condition unlike say, in Libya). If it was easy they'd done it already, condemnations and proxy groups be damned (like say, those other times they bombed budding nuclear plants in Iraq and Syria). But argumentation aside, it's not like I expect the Israelis to fail if they really put their minds to it (although if they'd really get ALL the nuclear sites is doubtful)- but it's gonna cost them, from ICBMs mostly - patriots or not, any argument that favours the Israelis on the offensive is gonna work in favour for those missiles (even more so as they don't have to actually get back ). It doesn't appear like the Israeli military itself is 100% confident at this whole schtick, if leaked comments and the almost public back-and-forth in the media we've seen is any indication. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2012 23:17
|
|
GO 'MURICA STOMP THEM STUPID IRANIANS post, but the bottom line is that there is nothing from an air defense standpoint stopping Israel or the U.S. from successfully attacking Iran. The things preventing an attack (besides a rational assessment by the governments involved of the positives/negativ--
couldn't say that with a straight face) are the reasons I gave before: deterrent threat from Iran's ballistic missile threat (and even this isn't too much due to Israel's rather advanced anti-ballistic missile systems), deterrent threat from asymmetric shenanigans Iran could stir up through proxy groups, world condemnation, and political pressure from allies.
|
"Sir, we have fifteen inbound contacts at- wait. We are recieving some sort of signal" "Well what is it? Are they trying to jam us?" "I appear to be some sort of code... Something about a goat. Look here" "Hmm, I'll just investigate that link on this laptop here and-  ""Sir, I need permission to fire. Sir? Sir!" "What the hell are you doing over there SAM command?! We just got bombed by a bunch of jets that you let through!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Which is why it's a terrible idea to bring tanks into urban combat like that without proper infantry support (even if those guys that appeared behind the tank where government soldiers they weren't doing a very good job of it).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
 Weapon wank: There's about 20 (60.2 vs 41.2) tons of armor* difference between a T-72 and a modern Abrams, so that's to be expected (maybe even more for a TUSK kitted Abrams). The customary "heavy" western MBT can take a shitload of RPG-7s and continue to be operational, I think there's some report of a British tank taking like 28+ rockets and getting out of that scrape (although I believe the driver may have died from one hit). The rebels may have some stronger stuff than a RPG-7 though, and there are plenty of variants even amongst RPG-7 types (which I presume the Syrian army, and therefore the FSA, got). So yeah, there's a world of difference between how and where a western tank can operate compared to a soviet-era design. *Well, probably some other bits that are heavier too - but then again the armor "value" of one ton on a western tank is a lot higher than that of a soviet-era T-72.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
All those heavy weapons won't matter for poo poo without fuel. I wonder how many tank trucks Assad got...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Would the Syrian air force even be able to tell the difference between their own tanks and any captured ones, short of some gaudy paintjob and "obvious" front fighting between two tanks? (even then it would be difficult) The air force haven't struck me as the most threatening part of the Syrian armed forces during this uprising and for a long while it wasn't making a showing at all. Seems more likely that big armor concentrations just doesn't fit the FSA playbook (or rather, it would fit the Syrian army's playbook more than theirs - a negative if anything).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
I just haven't seen videos or read any articles of this alleged swarm of Syrian Stuka's blowing up any rebel held armored vehicle should it dare to see open sky. Only place I've seen that explanation is in this thread, and there seem to be plenty of better reasons for why they aren't rolling out the tank divisions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
A group of activists linked me the following video clue of the true identity of Brown Moses. The Guardian (paranoid) commentators may be very interested in learning this piece of information. And Batman
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Still waiting for the FSA to be crushed at ANY MOMENT NOW - the Guardian's comment section can't be letting me down right? I got bets running on this thing! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Today it's been reported that a "Syrian rebel chief abandons uprising", after a group of supposed FSA members defected back to the regime at a press conference in front of the tolerated opposition in Damascus. Unfortuantly when they were hiring the actors to play these opposition members they forgot one had already confessed to being a terrorist 6 months ago, and yet was back as a FSA commander rejoining the regime. I've blogged the details of it here. Look at how wrong you are I heard from my dear intelligence community friends at the Guardian comment section that FSA members must be defecting in droves, scores higher than reported and that they suffer so large losses that the rebellion might in fact already be over - the western media is simply hiding the TRUTH and refusing to show BOTH SIDES of this conflict! Russia Today every day! Now after writing all that I'll just go out and shoot myself in the head for fun 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 16:56
|
|