|
Could it be a fuel issue? They want to save using fuel at night to have during the day?
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
Maybe, I suspect it ties into Egypt's large subsidies then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Durgat posted:What will happen to the Alawites when the Assad government finally collapses? While the FSA and the SNC stress time and again that they aim for a non-sectarian government, ethnic (or religious, whatever) cleansing is a possibility that nobody who's been paying attention seems willing to discard at this point. At the very least there will be a huge Alawi exodus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Xandu posted:On the recent Egyptian decree for stores to close at midnight For a country that relies pretty heavily on tourism this seems like a stupid thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:For a country that relies pretty heavily on tourism this seems like a stupid thing to do. Isn't it equally stupid to do nothing? If they are having problems supplying power, something needs to be done. When traveling I tend to not stay out past midnight, so I don't think this will effect their tourism much, unless Egypt is known for their nightlife (something I've never heard, but admittedly don't know either way.) Obviously, there are a lot of possible solutions. I'd like to think they'd make the best decisions with the information available to them, but we all know that isnt the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:Isn't it equally stupid to do nothing? If they are having problems supplying power, something needs to be done. Egypt has a pretty good nightlife. Ministry of Sound has a nightclub in Sharm el-Sheikh, along with others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:Isn't it equally stupid to do nothing? If they are having problems supplying power, something needs to be done. The guy championing this, the Minister for Local Development, has gone on record saying he's persuing this project in order to teach Egyptians to sleep early, which he says would increase productivity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Ham posted:The guy championing this, the Minister for Local Development, has gone on record saying he's persuing this project in order to teach Egyptians to sleep early, which he says would increase productivity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Waking up at 6 a.m. never made me more productive. It just made me hate life. Waking up at 10 a.m. is where it's at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Wow, way to try and Westernize the people, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Adrastus posted:That's just dumb. Why did Morsi go along with this? quote:...After almost two months of condemnation and warnings of severe economic impacts, Egypt’s government insists on enforcing the law at the beginning of December. Morsi addressed the ongoing debate in a public speech on Friday, Nov. 9. “Those who stay up all night, when do they work and how do they expect to make profits if they don’t pray the dawn prayers?” he said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Section 31 posted:Because...this is what he said: Yeah, Morsi is a complete tool. Most of his public appearances are during Friday mass-prayers where he says some completely asinine poo poo. One time a couple weeks ago, he announced he'd instructed the government to start a new account for corrupt businessmen to place their corrupt money in to have their sins cleansed in the eyes of god.  Some very realistic economic planning right there.... The government has also announced some amazing proposed tax-changes, with several different tiers, whereby people that make ~6500$ a year are taxed 20%, the same rate for people who make ~165,000$ a year. Ham fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Looks like the Joranian government hiked fuel prices today, sparking thousands of protests lasting into late night across Amman and other towns. Some are demanding the downfall of the regime, marking the first time this has been demanded on such a scale in the Hashemite Kingdom. Numerous protests have been broken with tear gas. To make matters worse, at least one TV station is reporting live ammunition being used against unarmed protesters in an Amman suburb tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Egypt has a pretty good nightlife. Ministry of Sound has a nightclub in Sharm el-Sheikh, along with others. Aly & Fila are Egyptian born trance/progressive DJs that are active there still too. They had a really big hit last year in the trance community. Hard to imagine Egypt not having a nightlife when guys like that are around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
The opposition have captured some advanced surface to air missile system, the number captured is unclear, but if it's more than a few it could be significant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
^^^ Iglas are actually serious business, that publicity might be enough to make the pilots try to refuse taking off So with the Syrian opposition moving to unify, can we expect to hear more along the lines of registering and paying fighters, or was that just a local commander's concept that never really took root? It seemed like a great way to keep people loyal and interested, able to put food on the table, and know who's actually fighting for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, what do you pay fighters with? The Syrian currency has to be worth something slightly north of monopoly money at this point. Would they use Euros or Dollars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
I came across a interesting photo from a massive truck bomb showing two unexploded bombs being used alongside the DIY explosives, Unexploded Bombs Used In A Truck Bomb By Jahbat al-Nusra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
I've been sent this remarkable video that shows cluster bomblets being repurposed as DIY rocket warheads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ejAGdC0s_k I've written more on it here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The opposition have captured some advanced surface to air missile system, the number captured is unclear, but if it's more than a few it could be significant. That's a serious upgrade in firepower there. Really depends on how many they got and where they have them, but I wouldn't want to be a Syrian pilot in any case. I wonder - if aerial bombardment becomes untenable due to rebel MANPADs, does Assad resort to using conventionally armed SRBMs for bombardment purposes? I'm not sure what else he has left, besides opening Pandora's box and deploying chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The opposition have captured some advanced surface to air missile system, the number captured is unclear, but if it's more than a few it could be significant. "Until now there's been no evidence of these systems being captured by the opposition, but this picture shows one system, an SA-16, that was reportedly captured by Ansar al-Islam from a air defence in East Ghouta, near Damascus" BM, I think you're missing some English towards the end there.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla The operational history of that thing is pretty fearsome. Still can't down an A-10 though! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:^^^ Iglas are actually serious business, that publicity might be enough to make the pilots try to refuse taking off Terrifying Effigies posted:That's a serious upgrade in firepower there. Really depends on how many they got and where they have them, but I wouldn't want to be a Syrian pilot in any case.  Didn't the rebels already capture a lot of MANPADs before? I'm yet to see them being used...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Ham posted:Yeah, Morsi is a complete tool. Most of his public appearances are during Friday mass-prayers where he says some completely asinine poo poo. One time a couple weeks ago, he announced he'd instructed the government to start a new account for corrupt businessmen to place their corrupt money in to have their sins cleansed in the eyes of god. Has there been any sign that the new government has some competent people working on building up the new democracy? Or is it pretty bad all around?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Section 31 posted:Assuming the rebels know how to operate one of those things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2aRRCJCgHqg Closest I can offer you is this video of what looks like an MANPAD smoke spiral missing a plane that is probably way out of range. Some other videos of them being aimed upward, not just shown off, but I haven't seen anything showing one being fired. BM? Of course the Amy is also busting out the anti air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R53WCHc8qTQ&feature=plcp Shilka's really do look much more terrifying than the tanks, but they're tall and flat sided with paper thin armor. Basically RPG bait. farraday fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
So at this point is there any reason to believe Morsi isn't going to work to turn Egypt in to an Islamic state and basically do the poo poo he promised during the election he wouldn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
farraday posted:Of course the Amy is also busting out the anti air. I think there've been videos around that showed Syrian military using Shilkas to fire into civilian buildings in a town. Getting shot at by four autocannons loaded with high shrapnel high explosive shells is hell on earth. edit: here's one from Homs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7yeSrCTNOE Homs again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoFDdpzZ3o This is the one I was thinking of, from Douma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM4FlLilYSM az fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Just remember, stuff that will eff up an airplane will also eff up a tank. Rommel knew this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
az posted:I think there've been videos around that showed Syrian military using Shilkas to fire into civilian buildings in a town. Getting shot at by four autocannons loaded with high shrapnel high explosive shells is hell on earth. It absolutely is, but so it getting shelled by a tank. Shilkas are absolutely brutal anti infantry weapons, and I will give you great odds they're being used to man check points and sitting fat dumb and happy in areas with crappy line of sight. When was the last time the Syrian Army impressed you with its use of equipment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
farraday posted:I will give you great odds they're being used to man check points and sitting fat dumb and happy in areas with crappy line of sight. You can see in the videos above that they're really doing that. Basically parking them in narrow streets with no coverage from infrantry, I don't know who taught them basic combat maneuvering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
az posted:You can see in the videos above that they're really doing that. Basically parking them in narrow streets with no coverage from infrantry, I don't know who taught them basic combat maneuvering. It's also worth noting a lot of those are older videos before the rebels started getting their hands one basic anti armor equipment. Like I said the armor on these is paper thin and pretty much any RPG hit is going to kill one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Just remember, stuff that will eff up an airplane will also eff up a tank. Rommel knew this. 23mm shells will do exactly one thing to a tank - make drat sure its crew knows where you are and is going to shoot you. At best you could get super lucky using the lovely API ammo they have and damage some optics or reactive armor bricks. Unless by "tank" you mean an early BMP-1 which would still be drat hard to penetrate from the front even using modern APDS-T ammunition, which the Syrians are very unlikely to have. The Germans used *88mm AA guns* as an ad-hoc solution due to early war German tanks and anti-tank weapons having poo poo like 20mm cannons which couldn't penetrate many of the tanks of the time. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Just remember, stuff that will eff up an airplane will also eff up a tank. Rommel knew this. Not really, no. Nobody uses large calibur AA artillery like the WW2 german 88mm cannon anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:23mm shells will do exactly one thing to a tank - make drat sure its crew knows where you are and is going to shoot you. At best you could get super lucky using the lovely API ammo they have and damage some optics or reactive armor bricks. Comparing the 88mm, which I assume is what you are talking about, to a 23mm anti-aircraft gun is kind of flawed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Comparing the 88mm, which I assume is what you are talking about, to a 23mm anti-aircraft gun is kind of flawed. I'm comparing the large caliber 88mm AA gun that was found useful against tanks in WWII (which the poster was referencing) to modern AA guns as found in places like Syria which are of substantially smaller caliber because nobody uses large caliber AAA anymore. 23mm-40mm is perfectly fine for shooting down aircraft but utterly underpowered against even WWII era tanks. Even 88mm, if anyone still used AA guns that large, would be of very limited use against something like a T-72. Soviet 23mm guns are the type that are common in Syria and they would have trouble destroying even a lightly armored BMP-1 APC from the front. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I'm comparing the large caliber 88mm AA gun that was found useful against tanks in WWII (which the poster was referencing) to modern AA guns as found in places like Syria which are of substantially smaller caliber because nobody uses large caliber AAA anymore. 23mm-40mm is perfectly fine for shooting down aircraft but utterly underpowered against even WWII era tanks. Even 88mm, if anyone still used AA guns that large, would be of very limited use against something like a T-72. If a T-72 was just rolled steel, I'm betting the 88 could cope at 100m or less. But tanks are not just rolled steel anymore. Even the T-72 was steel and composite armor. But the penetrating power of a 88mm is significantly more than a 23-40mm anti-aircraft gun. I see your point, but one is a massive caliber difference. Fun fact: After the fall of the Soviet Union, European and American amour specialists got their hands on some modern T-72s and got a chance to test the armor. It was found that the T-72 was impervious to most of the American and European weapons of the day. It sparked a revolution in tank armor and weapon systems. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If a T-72 was just rolled steel, I'm betting the 88 could cope at 100m or less. But tanks are not just rolled steel anymore. Even the T-72 was steel and composite armor. The earliest model of T-72 had the equivalent of over 330mm of RHA on its frontal hull and 380mm on the turret front. The longer barreled version of the 88mm gun in question, using the absolute best APCR ammunition available in WWII, could penetrate 233mm at less than 100m (effectively point blank). Not even close. CommieGIR posted:Fun fact: After the fall of the Soviet Union, European and American amour specialists got their hands on some modern T-72s and got a chance to test the armor. It was found that the T-72 was impervious to most of the American and European weapons of the day. It sparked a revolution in tank armor and weapon systems. Sort of. There were several tests performed on several versions of the T-72 (and T-80). What it boiled down to was that Kontact-5 reactive armor made either one extremely resilient at anything but very close ranges but without the reactive armor bricks they could be penetrated easily at extreme ranges. For example, the Canadians shot up T-72M1s (equivalent to the Soviet T-72A and not that far behind the T-72B without ERA - except the front of the Dolly Parton turret) with Leopard 1's using 105mm guns and had rounds pass through the front hull, crew compartment, and engine before flying out the back of the tank and into the berm downrange. The turrets proved similarly vulnerable. These findings matched the findings of the Russian investigators in Chechnya (who found the tanks worryingly vulnerable to RPGs basically anywhere they did not have ERA) and what you see today in Syria. The NATO reaction was simply to make a heavier SABOT round. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The earliest model of T-72 had the equivalent of over 330mm of RHA on its frontal hull and 380mm on the turret front. The longer barreled version of the 88mm gun in question, using the absolute best APCR ammunition available in WWII, could penetrate 233mm at less than 100m (effectively point blank). Not even close. You are aware those figures are figuring in the sloped armor, but you are correct, I withdraw my assessment. Would still give you a better fighting chance than a 23mm AA cannon. Warbadger posted:Sort of. There were several tests performed on several versions of the T-72 (and T-80). What it boiled down to was that Kontact-5 reactive armor made either one extremely resilient at anything but very close ranges but without the reactive armor bricks they could be penetrated easily at extreme ranges. Ah, so their survivability is almost totally dependent upon the reactive armor. Neat. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are aware those figures are figuring in the sloped armor, but you are correct, I withdraw my assessment. Of course it would, the point being that nobody uses 88mm cannons or anything like them as AAA these days and what is effective against aircraft (particularly after WWII) is not necessarily going to be effective against a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Of course it would, the point being that nobody uses 88mm cannons or anything like them as AAA these days and what is effective against aircraft (particularly after WWII) is not necessarily going to be effective against a tank. What about the Iglas, could those in theory damage a T-72 if aimed manually? I mean, it seems extremely doubtful from what I'm reading CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What about the Iglas, could those in theory damage a T-72 if aimed manually? The Igla carries around 3kg of high explosives in a fragmentation warhead. It's like a big hand grenade. Fragmentation is great when it sends hot metal shards flying outward, maximizing your chances of hitting a fast moving, thin skinned aluminum frame filled with fuel. Not so great when it hits a thick steel plate, which is why tanks exist in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 03:24
|
|