Reports indicate Turkey has lost at least 10 Leopard 2A4s
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
av8rmongo
- E5
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:24 pm
- Location: Newport, RI
- Contact:
Reports indicate Turkey has lost at least 10 Leopard 2A4s
Has anyone been following these reports? It sounds like the Turkish Army hasn't learned the lessons of how to use tanks in built up areas. Or have I bitten off on some fake news?
“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.â€
― George Orwell, 1984
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell
http://av8rmongo.wordpress.com
― George Orwell, 1984
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell
http://av8rmongo.wordpress.com
-
CDP
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:09 pm
- Location: Brisbane Australia
Interesting.
Do not know if I would believe 10 destroyed Leopards. Did a search on line and there does look to be photos of 3 Leopards being hit by some type of ATGM. This would not surprise me as Turkey has now been in northern Syria for about a month and these Leopards have no ERA or TUSK Kit's. The US built & issues the TUSK Kits to counter the same issues the Turks are now experiencing and this for the Abrams, which was already a more heavily armored vehicle.
Remember the bad guys (ISIS/ AQ Etc..) have been using the same ambush tactics against the Syrian Assad Government since the start of the war.
I also do not entirely believe the "SouthernFront.org" web site 100%. It is too much like a Russian Propaganda site to discredit western efforts. They could have rounded up the figures so it sounded better.
Do not know if I would believe 10 destroyed Leopards. Did a search on line and there does look to be photos of 3 Leopards being hit by some type of ATGM. This would not surprise me as Turkey has now been in northern Syria for about a month and these Leopards have no ERA or TUSK Kit's. The US built & issues the TUSK Kits to counter the same issues the Turks are now experiencing and this for the Abrams, which was already a more heavily armored vehicle.
Remember the bad guys (ISIS/ AQ Etc..) have been using the same ambush tactics against the Syrian Assad Government since the start of the war.
I also do not entirely believe the "SouthernFront.org" web site 100%. It is too much like a Russian Propaganda site to discredit western efforts. They could have rounded up the figures so it sounded better.
Cheers
Carl D Peachey
Carl D Peachey
-
Hoth_902
- E5
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Contact:
If this is all common knowledge to you all, I apologize in advance.. My girlfriend has informed me that I’ve used all my tank talk minutes and I was left with no one to dump this on… LOL
I've read a little bit and the losses seem to be classic misuse of equipment. Based on what I have seen, a lot of these were hits from behind. Some of these were due to operations in city streets where tanks weaknesses can be exploited easily. Tanks are weaker on the sides and from behind. Fighting in open country, head to head does allows you to save weight in non critical areas. I am aware most of you know this but sometimes people overlook this or assume little risk of attack in these areas. Mainly due to lack of training for the new environment that most tankers find themselves in. Aljazeera produced a 4 part series about the Merkava, where they discussed the issues with that tank from rear attack. Below is the first one. It can be found by doing a youtube search with the words Aljazeera and Merkava
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CuDbbr5tA
this documentary talked about people designing equipment for the last war and not being ready for the next. Merkava’s were designed to go head to head with other tanks and survive. There was little or low effort put into the possibility of rear attack by infantry. The even big problem resulted from Israel bragging about their awesome invincible tank and telling the world about every aspect. What they did not think about or realize was that Hezbollah was watching. Hezbollah watched and found weaknesses in the tank an exploited them to some success. They learned that the hatch in the back was lightly armored and could not withstand a hit from an RPG. They futher realized that an improvised explosive device under the tank was highly effective. The leopard may not have a crew hatch in the rear but they do have an engine and ammo storage on the back of the turret. Both are vulnerable to Anti tank and explosive devices. However, the proof is in the pudding.. The big question would be, how the crew was after the incident? It’s one thing to reduce its combat effectiveness or just take it out of the fight, but its another to destroy it and make it a total loss. M1s can be hit and disabled, but the big advantage is crew survivability and how fast the tank can be put back into action. A lot of the footage of ISIS/ISIL taking out tanks shows rounds cooking off or explosion but few show anything after that.. They purposely cut things so you cannot see if the tank just suffered damage or if it’s a total loss. This prevents a true battle assessment. In addition, I don’t think Germany is going to tell the world how the vehicle faired, because it suits them just fine if the world underestimates the capability of their tanks.
A similar issue came up in my war game group.. One of our players opened up on an M1 with the Bradley chain gun and knocked it out. The rules set we were using was not terribly technical or detailed other than showing the rear armor being weaker. However a big discussion began about if this was possible. I argued it was because of the weaker armor and you don’t have to blow a tank up to totally take it out of the fight. There are far less obvious things that can knockout a tank and make it ineffective.. like Sensors, hydraulics, visions ports, wheels and engines to name a few. In an effort to back my belief up, I talked to a buddy of mine who use to work at an IFV and tank manufacturer, of which we will not speak its name, and he stated that anything over 35 caliber chain gun was considered a tank killer. Mainly because side and rear armor was weaker.
I also watched a documentary where a challenger tank was taken out of the fight because it was hit by multiple RPGs. These small explosive charges did not destroy the vehicle. However it was able to take it out of the fight because all the vision ports and sensors were destroyed leaving the tank blind. Tank can’t see, thank can’t fight.
The new form that combat takes does not lend itself to the far extended battle lines where frontal attacks are the rule of the day.. Low intensity combat (LIC) has berthed a new tactic where the enemy waits till you pass and then attacks your softer targets like the weaker parts of a tank, or as the Iraqi army did in the second gulf war, your undefended supply lines.
Sounds like someone needs to add in an infantry screen to make sure no one is lurking around..
I've read a little bit and the losses seem to be classic misuse of equipment. Based on what I have seen, a lot of these were hits from behind. Some of these were due to operations in city streets where tanks weaknesses can be exploited easily. Tanks are weaker on the sides and from behind. Fighting in open country, head to head does allows you to save weight in non critical areas. I am aware most of you know this but sometimes people overlook this or assume little risk of attack in these areas. Mainly due to lack of training for the new environment that most tankers find themselves in. Aljazeera produced a 4 part series about the Merkava, where they discussed the issues with that tank from rear attack. Below is the first one. It can be found by doing a youtube search with the words Aljazeera and Merkava
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CuDbbr5tA
this documentary talked about people designing equipment for the last war and not being ready for the next. Merkava’s were designed to go head to head with other tanks and survive. There was little or low effort put into the possibility of rear attack by infantry. The even big problem resulted from Israel bragging about their awesome invincible tank and telling the world about every aspect. What they did not think about or realize was that Hezbollah was watching. Hezbollah watched and found weaknesses in the tank an exploited them to some success. They learned that the hatch in the back was lightly armored and could not withstand a hit from an RPG. They futher realized that an improvised explosive device under the tank was highly effective. The leopard may not have a crew hatch in the rear but they do have an engine and ammo storage on the back of the turret. Both are vulnerable to Anti tank and explosive devices. However, the proof is in the pudding.. The big question would be, how the crew was after the incident? It’s one thing to reduce its combat effectiveness or just take it out of the fight, but its another to destroy it and make it a total loss. M1s can be hit and disabled, but the big advantage is crew survivability and how fast the tank can be put back into action. A lot of the footage of ISIS/ISIL taking out tanks shows rounds cooking off or explosion but few show anything after that.. They purposely cut things so you cannot see if the tank just suffered damage or if it’s a total loss. This prevents a true battle assessment. In addition, I don’t think Germany is going to tell the world how the vehicle faired, because it suits them just fine if the world underestimates the capability of their tanks.
A similar issue came up in my war game group.. One of our players opened up on an M1 with the Bradley chain gun and knocked it out. The rules set we were using was not terribly technical or detailed other than showing the rear armor being weaker. However a big discussion began about if this was possible. I argued it was because of the weaker armor and you don’t have to blow a tank up to totally take it out of the fight. There are far less obvious things that can knockout a tank and make it ineffective.. like Sensors, hydraulics, visions ports, wheels and engines to name a few. In an effort to back my belief up, I talked to a buddy of mine who use to work at an IFV and tank manufacturer, of which we will not speak its name, and he stated that anything over 35 caliber chain gun was considered a tank killer. Mainly because side and rear armor was weaker.
I also watched a documentary where a challenger tank was taken out of the fight because it was hit by multiple RPGs. These small explosive charges did not destroy the vehicle. However it was able to take it out of the fight because all the vision ports and sensors were destroyed leaving the tank blind. Tank can’t see, thank can’t fight.
The new form that combat takes does not lend itself to the far extended battle lines where frontal attacks are the rule of the day.. Low intensity combat (LIC) has berthed a new tactic where the enemy waits till you pass and then attacks your softer targets like the weaker parts of a tank, or as the Iraqi army did in the second gulf war, your undefended supply lines.
Sounds like someone needs to add in an infantry screen to make sure no one is lurking around..
-
Extra Crispy
- E5
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Edgewater, NJ
- Contact:
Misuse is correct.
When Israel bragged about the Merkava they knew Hezbollah were watching. They were not the audience. The Israelis needed to impress on Iran, Syria, Egypt et. al. that a shooting war would end the same as the last one.
Armored vehicles have always been vulnerable this way. In Vietnam infantry rode on top of the M113 because they were so vulnerable to mines and IEDs. Veteran tankers often add improvised armor to defeat these lower tech weapons: sand bags, logs, etc.
But I agree - we have a claim of 10 tanks killed. I don;t trust until verified!
When Israel bragged about the Merkava they knew Hezbollah were watching. They were not the audience. The Israelis needed to impress on Iran, Syria, Egypt et. al. that a shooting war would end the same as the last one.
Armored vehicles have always been vulnerable this way. In Vietnam infantry rode on top of the M113 because they were so vulnerable to mines and IEDs. Veteran tankers often add improvised armor to defeat these lower tech weapons: sand bags, logs, etc.
But I agree - we have a claim of 10 tanks killed. I don;t trust until verified!
Mark Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
Author DeepFriedHappyMice.com
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
Author DeepFriedHappyMice.com
-
Hoth_902
- E5
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Contact:
Extra,
I guess my writing last night was a little sloppy. I would agree that they new Hezbollah was watching. They would have to be daft if they didn't. I guess it would have been better to say that while they were trying to give there neighbors something to think about in case they attacked, someone was looking for ways to take it out.
I guess my writing last night was a little sloppy. I would agree that they new Hezbollah was watching. They would have to be daft if they didn't. I guess it would have been better to say that while they were trying to give there neighbors something to think about in case they attacked, someone was looking for ways to take it out.
-
Hoth_902
- E5
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Contact:
RedDragon,
Yea, no problem. I love watching stuff like this almost as much as I like talking about the vehicles. LOL. I can't wait till the future to see the documentaries they write about what really happen to the vehicles for the current series of conflicts in the middle east. Even though the M1s seeing combat now are not fitted with DU and Chabba armor, I am betting there will be more than a few pieces talking about how they did in combat with the saudi's and Iraqi's.
Yea, no problem. I love watching stuff like this almost as much as I like talking about the vehicles. LOL. I can't wait till the future to see the documentaries they write about what really happen to the vehicles for the current series of conflicts in the middle east. Even though the M1s seeing combat now are not fitted with DU and Chabba armor, I am betting there will be more than a few pieces talking about how they did in combat with the saudi's and Iraqi's.