Jump to content
exsonic01

Turkish Leo2 tanks struggle in the Syria

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ivanov said:

The newer versions of Leopard like A5, A6 ( the most common variants used by NATO forces ) have improved turret armor, but on the sides they are equally vulnerable as the A4. The Revolution package has improved side protection but they are in service only in Indonesia and Singapore. A7 still isn't in service in any significant numbers. Since in any foreseeable future the asymmetrical conflicts are much more probable than any regular warfare against the near peer adversary, I think that the Syrian conflict highlights the need of equipping the western tanks with the APS systems. So far only the Dutch CV90's are going to be fitted with an Israeli APS Iron Fist.

Sorry i missed your post earlier

I disagree that newer versions of Leo 2, is equally vulnerable as the A4 on the side. Because they are not. But i see your point, and it is absolutely true that newer versions would not stop a metis or kornet in the side. And you are absolutely right, that APS is the way to go. As a cheap temporary solution, maybe advanced slatarmour could do a decent jobb.

Like on this one http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2010_army_military_defense_industry_news/swedish_mbt122b_evolution_one_of_best_protected_main_battle_tanks_in_the_world_23122010-5.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I'm trying to recall, the US Iraq invasion in 2003, did anyone see/hear/witness any anecdotes about US forces coming under fire by ATGMs? I do recall they absolutely FREAKED when they mistakenly thought Kornet was in-country, threatened to attack Syria over it. But there weren't any.

And BTW, anyone whose played good-old CMSF for half a day knows about ATGMs and any type of (not-reactive) armor hit from the side.

Recently I've been reading quite a lot about the 2003 invasion and I'm still amazed how little loses US forces suffered in the process.  It seems that the Iraqi forces were kept decisively off balance by the speed of the highly mobile nature of the US assault ( compare it with the stationary Turkish Leopards ). It seems, that the most common Iraqi anti-tank teams encountered at that time were irregulars ( fedayeen, Al-Quds ) armed with RPG's. The Iraqis were planning to ambush US forces in the cities that were largely bypassed. BTW, the Turkish Leopards were hit by older ATGM's like Konkurs. A Kornet would go through front armor of Leopard 2A6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Sorry i missed your post earlier

I disagree that newer versions of Leo 2, is equally vulnerable as the A4 on the side. Because they are not. But i see your point, and it is absolutely true that newer versions would not stop a metis or kornet in the side. And you are absolutely right, that APS is the way to go. As a cheap temporary solution, maybe advanced slatarmour could do a decent jobb.

Like on this one http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2010_army_military_defense_industry_news/swedish_mbt122b_evolution_one_of_best_protected_main_battle_tanks_in_the_world_23122010-5.html

I have friends who serve on Leopards 2A4 and A5. Up until A7 there were no significant improvements of the side protection. The Swedish upgrade you posted, has similar protection to the Revolution package. Maybe it's the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ivanov said:

I have friends who serve on Leopards 2A4 and A5. Up until A7 there were no significant improvements of the side protection. The Swedish upgrade you posted, has similar protection to the Revolution package. Maybe it's the same thing.

Since Leo 2a5 there is addon armor to the front half of the turret sides. But even if the turret may look the same behind those addon plates, the inserts of composite has changed over the years. Just as it has On the Abrams.

Since i´m from Sweden, i have no knowledge of the difference between different German versions. But i have great knowledge of the Swedish Strv 121 (Leo 2a4) and Strv 122. But the Strv 122 has addon armor from the then Swedish corporation Åkers krutbruk, which is now owned to 51% by German corporation IBD.

And yes, its the same concept as Leo 2 Evolution. IBD is the manufacturer of both.  

 

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Since Leo 2a5 there is addon armor to the front half of the turret sides. But even if the turret may look the same behind those addon plates, the inserts of composite has changed over the years. Just as it has On the Abrams.

Since i´m from Sweden, i have no knowledge of the difference between different German versions. But i have great knowledge of the Swedish Strv 121 (Leo 2a4) and Strv 122. But the Strv 122 has addon armor from the then Swedish corporation Åkers krutbruk, which is now owned to 51% by German corporation IBD.

And yes, its the same concept as Leo 2 Evolution. IBD is the manufacturer of both.  

 

You're correct about the improved turret protection since A5. I was referring to the hull side protection.

BTW the Swedish Strv 122 is one of the most comprehensive Leopard 2 modifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

You're correct about the improved turret protection since A5. I was referring to the hull side protection.

BTW the Swedish Strv 122 is one of the most comprehensive Leopard 2 modifications.

Oh the hull sides have not seen much improvements, that is correct. Although some Leopard 2 countries have modular side and/or IED protection, it is in low numbers. marked for tanks that will serve in, for example Afghanistan. Not their entire tank fleets, for national defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivanov,

I don't subscribe to the mindset you described.

On 1/19/2017 at 1:03 PM, Ivanov said:

I'm referring to the post GF1 mindset, that every Soviet/Russian build tank ( read T-72 ) is a crap, while western tanks like Abrams, Challenger or Leopard 2 are invincible. 

What I will, say, though, is that if the ammo goes off high order, it can blow the tank apart, and that results in the instant creation of a flying turret. There's an extended version of this clip showing the aftermath, but if you listen closely, you can quite clearly here the people involved in a live fire Javelin test vs a combat loaded T-72 marveling over how high the turret got when the tank exploded upon missile impact.
 

Footage I've seen from Syria shows T-72s hit by RPG fire typically burn rather than explode, but that is hardly the same as a direct hit from a 120 mm hypervelocity KE projectile.

This isn't a main gun hit, but is from some model TOW instead. The turret stays on, but the tank is rendered useless, as evidenced by its abandonment. This highly detailed and meaty SouthFront analysis makes the case that the tank would not have needed abandonment had the hatch been closed per combat regs; that blast overpressure, not turret front penetration, was what forced surviving crew evacuation. The analysis indicates the TOW used was most likely a TOW 2A. Additionally, it notes the tank has a 1992 cast turret and that Shtora wasn't switched on.

And if there's any doubt anyone ever had about how vulnerable tanks are without protecting infantry, here's a tank being killed by a guy close assaulting with some sort of grenade, which I believe to be HEAT. Tank is killed, but burns rather than explodes, so turret stays on. Would like to throttle the idiot on the camera who didn't zoom in on the action. Alternatively, this jihadist group knows nothing about post production where the problem could've been greatly diminished and enhance the visual and propaganda value of the footage.

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many M1A2S have the Saudis lost in Yemen?. 30-40? That doesn't mean the Abrams is a bad MBT compared to say Challenger 2, T-90, Leopard 2, Type 10 etc. It all boils down to crew training, tactics, supplies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some fresh pictures of the most recent Turkish loses. People have been scrutinizing the pics and apparently most of the tanks were destroyed by IS after they got captured or hit by Turkish air force or artillery. Makes me wonder what led to their capture? The crews panicked after SVBIED attacks?

16114536_1353645374685966_48105258075073

 

Possible hit by artillery:

16174544_1353634881353682_80027262698577

 

16002750_1353589294691574_11704020588562

 

Edited by Ivanov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Ivanov,

I don't subscribe to the mindset you described.

What I will, say, though, is that if the ammo goes off high order, it can blow the tank apart, and that results in the instant creation of a flying turret. There's an extended version of this clip showing the aftermath, but if you listen closely, you can quite clearly here the people involved in a live fire Javelin test vs a combat loaded T-72 marveling over how high the turret got when the tank exploded upon missile impact.
 

Footage I've seen from Syria shows T-72s hit by RPG fire typically burn rather than explode, but that is hardly the same as a direct hit from a 120 mm hypervelocity KE projectile.

This isn't a main gun hit, but is from some model TOW instead. The turret stays on, but the tank is rendered useless, as evidenced by its abandonment. This highly detailed and meaty SouthFront analysis makes the case that the tank would not have needed abandonment had the hatch been closed per combat regs; that blast overpressure, not turret front penetration, was what forced surviving crew evacuation. The analysis indicates the TOW used was most likely a TOW 2A. Additionally, it notes the tank has a 1992 cast turret and that Shtora wasn't switched on.

 

 

Here is TOW 2B that makes the turret of a combat loaded T-72 fly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Kettler said:

 

This isn't a main gun hit, but is from some model TOW instead. The turret stays on, but the tank is rendered useless, as evidenced by its abandonment. This highly detailed and meaty SouthFront analysis makes the case that the tank would not have needed abandonment had the hatch been closed per combat regs; that blast overpressure, not turret front penetration, was what forced surviving crew evacuation. The analysis indicates the TOW used was most likely a TOW 2A. Additionally, it notes the tank has a 1992 cast turret and that Shtora wasn't switched on.

 

 

Here is the same T-90 after the TOW hit, according to the Russians.

t_907.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Regarding the TOW and Javelin test videos, keep in mind those tanks are packed with explosives.

Here´s from Syria. A T-72 gets the turret blown off, it goes fast.

Jump to 7:05 where the action begins.

 

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanir Ausf B,

"Combat loaded" means fully munitioned and fueled for battle. This is as opposed to a tank devoid of either, thus much harder to destroy. When the US live fire tested GAU-8 ammo against a simulated Soviet tank company, the tanks were all combat loaded.

Armorgunner,

Welcome aboard!

Sure would've been nice to see the side of the turret which took the hit. If that's the tank, it's clear it didn't burn or explode. I do note the Shtora jammer on the left side of the cannon has the emitter hanging down so far the beam would hit the hull roof. Therefore, they may not be lying.

Big Boss,

The M1A2S, from my limited research, isn't what the Houthis have been killing in Yemen. Here's the FMS story for that tank (153 ordered) and how it's derived. Am not quite sure what to make of the term "battle damage replacements" at that link, since it's ambiguous. It could simply mean spare tanks over and above actual unit holdings. Defense One, though, argues those same 20 tanks are actually a way of hiding such a tank loss by the Saudis.

Earlier defense reporting described the fleet this way. While I'm sure the Abrams tanks the Saudis are getting have very good armor relative to the Iraqi M1M, I doubt it's as good as what we have on our own tanks. In any event...

Two more K-Kills of Saudi Abrams. Vid has some good info on the tanks and also has the TOW 2A vs T-90 in Syria sequence.

ATGM attacks on what appears to be a mixed bag of Abrams (Mine clearer?) and M60s.

The Saudis, who are manpower poor and in even worse shape when it comes to running high tech stuff, are taking serious lumps, not just in Yemen but inside their own country.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A2S(?) appears to have hit a mine/IED and been immobilized. I think that's the same tank being destroyed later, but I'm not sure.

Saudi Arabia's handling of armor in Yemen should be mandatory "Don't EVER do this" training in armor schools worldwide--unless those are hostile countries! Still looking for the one in which a RPG-29 team brazenly walked across the more or less flat ground, drew down on a completely exposed Saudi tank with no protection of any sort from infantry, and wiped it out with one shot. Would point out, though, most of the engagements we see are from above and usually the flanks and rear. Typical aim point seems to be turret or turret base. On quite a few occasions, a turret was all there is to shoot at.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Yes, Tanks are packed with explosives :D

 

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Vanir Ausf B,

"Combat loaded" means fully munitioned and fueled for battle. This is as opposed to a tank devoid of either, thus much harder to destroy. When the US live fire tested GAU-8 ammo against a simulated Soviet tank company, the tanks were all combat loaded.

Perhaps I did not explain clearly. My point isn't that T-72s normally can't explode, but that the T-72s in those test videos are rigged to ensure a catastrophic explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ivanov said:

There are some fresh pictures of the most recent Turkish loses. People have been scrutinizing the pics and apparently most of the tanks were destroyed by IS after they got captured or hit by Turkish air force or artillery. Makes me wonder what led to their capture? The crews panicked after SVBIED attacks?

16114536_1353645374685966_48105258075073

 

Possible hit by artillery:

16174544_1353634881353682_80027262698577

 

16002750_1353589294691574_11704020588562

 

according to the blogg Below the turret ring. The turret roof hit, was a lucky hit by an ATGM. The tank is in a slop, and the missile struck the turret roof. So it seems, it was not by arty.

And by the same site, maybe there is not so many destroyed Leopard 2. As the ISIS propaganda want us to believe. Read for your self, and make your own assessment.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.se/

anti-propaganda3.png

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Kettler said:

 

Armorgunner,

Welcome aboard!

 

 

 

 

Thank you Sir!

I was a hardcore player of CMBB and CMAK back in the days. And last summer, i was back. Started to play the CMx2 games. And I´m now the proud owner of CMSF, CMRT, CMBS and CMFB. And eagerly waiting to CMFI with module will be for sale again. Steve said mid January?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

according to the blogg Below the turret ring. The turret roof hit, was a lucky hit by an ATGM. The tank is in a slop, and the missile struck the turret roof. So it seems, it was not by arty.

And by the same site, maybe there is not so many destroyed Leopard 2. As the ISIS propaganda want us to believe. Read for your self, and make your own assessment.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.se/

anti-propaganda3.png

You're right. This seems to be a very lucky ATGM shot. Possibly by Metis-M. Most of the tanks were heavily damaged and captured. Again, makes me wonder about the training and morale of the Turkish army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two unambiguous separate ATGM kills of Turkish Leopard 2A4s from what is likely the same launcher. The foolishness of their deployment, and I believe I see several others, is scarcely comprehensible. The paint is high contrast to the terrain, and the tanks are mostly not in defilade  and are static to boot. The video illustrates exactly what we experience in CMBS when we handle our armor badly. Do stupid things, and you die quickly.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

 

Perhaps I did not explain clearly. My point isn't that T-72s normally can't explode, but that the T-72s in those test videos are rigged to ensure a catastrophic explosion.


Do you have any sort statements attesting to that fact?  The level of destruction on the tank in question is on par for how a T-72 can cook off, especially if you're getting a sympathetic vs sequential cookoff.  

Re: Leo 2/Turks

The Turks fell into the classic "Why don't we just SHOOT terrorists?" trap, in as far as the assumption is the nominal arrangement of their ISIS opponent was a  poorly armed but generally willing to engage in conventional shooting/geography based warfare organization.  To that end they pursued a very tank-mechanized infantry sort of operation, largely counting on tanks to provide protection/firepower overmatch of their opponents.

Where this all goes wrong is they're fighting people who've been dealing with tanks for decades.  And they've gotten quite good at dealing with them.

The key missing piece in Turkish employment of armor (or the easiest to discuss) is failing to understand the importance of mobility on the COIN battlefield.  This is likely shaped by their experience in using their tanks basically as sentry turrets against the Kurds, but is wholly out of place elsewhere.

When employing armor against an insurgent, you cannot lead with the tank, or leave it exposed for long, as that invites the enemy and allows him time to employ his assets accordingly.  Armor is best employed as a very powerful supporting tool, in that you gain and maintain contact against the insurgent (by using highly mobile infantry generally), and contain where the enemy is, and then once the battle is joined, you use the mobility of the tank to deploy it against enemy strongpoints once identified, and that armor-firepower to provide localized overmatch.  

Or basically:

1. If looking for a good "historical" and conventional example, try Aachen.  Locating the enemy, containing him, and then piling on with the tanks/direct fire assets.

2. Tanks should not be left out where someone can kill them.  This is true in both conventional and unconventional fights.  When the US was highly successful against insurgents with stationary armor, it generally did so because the tank was part of a wider surveillance-fires-protection plan (or properly dug in, with local security, with sensors aligned to cover the tank).  This is not what the Turks are doing.

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
More Rambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Here are two unambiguous separate ATGM kills of Turkish Leopard 2A4s from what is likely the same launcher. The foolishness of their deployment, and I believe I see several others, is scarcely comprehensible. The paint is high contrast to the terrain, and the tanks are mostly not in defilade  and are static to boot. The video illustrates exactly what we experience in CMBS when we handle our armor badly. Do stupid things, and you die quickly.

Regards,

John Kettler

The turret on the first tank is rotated 45 degrees to the right, and the hit looks to be on the back half of the tower. And the ammo compartment in the turret bustle is exactly there, with a blowoutpanel on top of it. So it could be an ammo cookoff through the blowout panel. Mission kill? Absolutely! K-Kill? Maybe. The second tank hit, we see a big boom. Things flying, and the clip ends. So we dont know if there is even a fire afterwards on that one. Probably not!, since they would have liked to show that with joy.

Everything we see in the movies from ISIS, are there because they want us to see it. What we can not see, we do not see by the same reason. They do not want us to see it. The films are used for propaganda purposes, so we'll have to think about that when we look at them.

On the right side on this pic, you see the leo 2 turret from the top. And can se where the ammocompartment, with the blowoutpanel is on the left side of the turret.

bets_protected_tank_in_the_world.jpg

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...