Jump to content
exsonic01

Turkish Leo2 tanks struggle in the Syria

Recommended Posts

Looks for me like rear hits from the 4-8hour position. Any tank would blow up by receiving hits from that position. More important question should be why the heck were they using tanks close to urban structures without screening infantry support. Silly tactics seem to have taken their bloody toll. 

Btw: IIRC those are 2A3 or 2A4 versions, 30 years old now. I served in one of these versions in the late 80s / early 90s with PzBtl. 24 in Brunswick, when PzBrig 2 still had the job to stop the potential break-through along the A2 highway axis near Hannover, also known as the northern german plain scenario.

Edited by DesertFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings up the topic of the 'come as you are' modern war using equipment that's often too expensive and time-consuming to build replacements. Britain has just 227 Challenger II tanks active, fewer tanks than Switzerland. Attrition could become a vexing problem for them in the event of conflict. Ukraine has a policy of rebuilding old tanks in volume rather than new purchases. Six T64BMs on the front are more valuable than one hyper-expensive supertank for the same cost. There's a reason why previous wars saw industry nationalized, rationing instituted, war profiteering criminalized. Because waging war is not a simple or cheap business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armorkiller,

Went back and watched the video three more times. It may be by somewhat nap fogged brain is simply unequal to the task, but I've now reached the point where I'm no longer sure what to believe! The first strike seems to throw up no large visible pieces. There's the primary strike, there are some small scale fireworks, after which is what has to be ammo cartridge burn off, something I've seen before with T-72s, where something rather like rocket blast comes roaring out of the TC's hatch, in one case firing him out in the process! It looks like there is something still burning thereafter which emits reddish brown smoke. The tank isn't fully involved that I can see. The second tank struck has an immediate high order detonation on impact. Am all but dead certain I can see the blowout panels in the sky above the tank. There doesn't seem to be much subsequently. Assessing these two attacks would be a lot easier if we didn't have to do without the typical view from dead aft (through the sight or very close to the launcher). Given these things, I am no longer certain either was a K-Kill. Neither has the burning and dead AFV pillar of black smoke so familiar from any number of military conflicts. The schematic is amazing. How I wish it had labels in English!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎23 at 5:08 AM, John Kettler said:

Armorkiller,

Went back and watched the video three more times. It may be by somewhat nap fogged brain is simply unequal to the task, but I've now reached the point where I'm no longer sure what to believe! The first strike seems to throw up no large visible pieces. There's the primary strike, there are some small scale fireworks, after which is what has to be ammo cartridge burn off, something I've seen before with T-72s, where something rather like rocket blast comes roaring out of the TC's hatch, in one case firing him out in the process! It looks like there is something still burning thereafter which emits reddish brown smoke. The tank isn't fully involved that I can see. The second tank struck has an immediate high order detonation on impact. Am all but dead certain I can see the blowout panels in the sky above the tank. There doesn't seem to be much subsequently. Assessing these two attacks would be a lot easier if we didn't have to do without the typical view from dead aft (through the sight or very close to the launcher). Given these things, I am no longer certain either was a K-Kill. Neither has the burning and dead AFV pillar of black smoke so familiar from any number of military conflicts. The schematic is amazing. How I wish it had labels in English!

Regards,

John Kettler

No, i agree.

Its hard to tell on a short clip from 2 miles away, if a tank is damaged, mission killed, or K-killed. Its easier on a T-72 or similar, if you see the "rocket blast" coming up from the turret. You know that tank is dead. But on western designs, from the mid 80´s, and forward. It could be from the blowoutpanel. Then it has worked as it should. And the crew, could be shaken but unharmed. But on a short clip from distance, it looks like the tank has been K-killed.

A note on the Leo 2a4, it has hydraulic turretdrive. with highly flammable hydraulic oil. From the A5, the turretdrive is electric. At least on Strv 122, which is a improved A5.

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎22 at 1:05 PM, 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

I have taken time several times now. From that I see the hit, to the sound of the explosion arrives. 14 seconds, which means it is 4760 meters away. If the sound you hear is not from the actual hit, but from when the ammo goes off. 9 seconds, which means 3060 meters. Since the sound travels 340 m/s. So its far, far away from the camera. Makes it even harder to determine the outcome on the clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Excroat3 said:

Another modern tank (T-90) destroyed by ISIS today.  In general, what modern tank hasn't been destroyed in the middle east?  Leclerc?  Challenger 2?

 

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823620512714788869

 

C24WeAeW8AAc281.jpg

Yes, one more. But still, its ISIS propaganda. Was it a deserted tank they burned, or a combat kill?

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


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

Yes, one more. But still, its ISIS propaganda. Was it a deserted tank they burned, or a combat kill?

Not sure.  The fact that only the ammo is cooking off from the turret-mounted HMG suggests that it has been knocked out and they are just setting fire to it again to make it look good for the cameras.  However, the turret is facing over the engine, suggesting it was taken out during a retreat possibly.  Too early to really tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may copy paste information kindly provided by BTR elsewhere:

"The source is a Republic Guard commander who server in #Khanaser front. This tank was hit back in Friday not yesterday as #ISIS said, it was operated by Al Fatemeyoon militia The tank got deeper into #ISIS territory with Shtora off expecting not to face anything but a 23MM gun the crew got surprised by an ATGM hit the upper turret section and knocked out many vision sights and the machine gun. and set it on fire, another ATGM was fired into the side of the tank and injured the driver. Then the commander and the gunner abandoned the tank without the diver. He was rescued after one hour. After several hours and due to the opened hatch the fire reached the ammo inside the tank and exploded. but the turret didn't went airborne. If the crew extinguished the fire up in the turret, the tank would've survived."

If this report is to be trusted, then the loss was completely avoidable if crew didnt screw up.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even. It's faked. The shadow on the tank hull shows the TC hatch open. As the cute little "package" detonates, the hatch shadow clearly closes. The actual hatch does not.

Something, if not all, has been faked.

Edit: Well, that's embarrassing. The shadows seem to've changed or my perspective has. It now does not seem that the shadow on the hull is the hatch, but rather the TC. The shadows match.

Edited by c3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not look fake. That shadow is the TC dropping down into the turret.

edit: indeed, it is excerpted from this much longer propaganda video.  Looks like they have been getting a lot of practice with these UAV-delivered bomblets (either taken directly from CBUs or improvised by adding tail units to 40mm grenades).  The video implies that these are all dropped from a fixed-wing UAV, but I suspect many are actually dropped from hovering quad-copter drones (thus simplifying the bombing trajectory problem).  If not, then there is at least one ISIS drone operator who is scarily talented.

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/TneJgWZZ/isis-ninawa_hd.mp4

(drone bombing from about 35 min on)

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akd said:

edit: indeed, it is excerpted from this much longer propaganda video.

Having seen more of this video I now fully understand why people objected to me linking to some excerpts with drone videos earlier.

Best regards,
Thomm

Share this post


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

Does not look fake. That shadow is the TC dropping down into the turret.

edit: indeed, it is excerpted from this much longer propaganda video.  Looks like they have been getting a lot of practice with these UAV-delivered bomblets (either taken directly from CBUs or improvised by adding tail units to 40mm grenades).  The video implies that these are all dropped from a fixed-wing UAV, but I suspect many are actually dropped from hovering quad-copter drones (thus simplifying the bombing trajectory problem).  If not, then there is at least one ISIS drone operator who is scarily talented.

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/TneJgWZZ/isis-ninawa_hd.mp4

(drone bombing from about 35 min on)

You are correct. I've appended an edit to my post, which was clearly in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought these videos were fake too (based on excerpts released in UK press), but I've had to reconsider having seen the film linked above. 

 

It kind of reminds me of the Soviet 'Night-Witches' or Vietnam's 'Washing Machine Charlie'.....Nuisance bombing updated for the new millennium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-01-19 at 6:00 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Not a myth. 'Flying turrets' doesn't apply to every model of the T-72, but it certainly applies to a few of them. 

I think that "flying turrets" will apply to all modells of the T-64/72/80/90 family. Its just that the later models are harder to penetrate from the frontal 60-90 degree arc. As long as there is enough ammo left in the T-family, and the turret hatches are closed. The turret will fly, if ther is an ammo cookoff in most cases. Since all ammo is stored under the turret.

If the turret hatches are open, The by now familiar "rocket blast" from the turret will be the case in most cases. Uppon an ammo cookoff.

"The all ammo inside crewcompartment flaw" . The Challenger 2 has it to. And the Leo 2 to som degree, Leo 2 doesn't havet all its ammo in the turretbustle, under blowoutpanels. Some is stores in thr crewcompartment. 

Share this post


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

I think that "flying turrets" will apply to all modells of the T-64/72/80/90 family. Its just that the later models are harder to penetrate from the frontal 60-90 degree arc. As long as there is enough ammo left in the T-family, and the turret hatches are closed. The turret will fly, if ther is an ammo cookoff in most cases. Since all ammo is stored under the turret.

If the turret hatches are open, The by now familiar "rocket blast" from the turret will be the case in most cases. Uppon an ammo cookoff.

"The all ammo inside crewcompartment flaw" . The Challenger 2 has it to. And the Leo 2 to som degree, Leo 2 doesn't havet all its ammo in the turretbustle, under blowoutpanels. Some is stores in thr crewcompartment. 

I wasn't aware that the Leo 2 and Chally had exposed ammo storage (even if just partially) although now that I think about it, it does make some sense. Various logistical and mechanical concerns likely explain the design choice. 

I generally agree with you that all of the T series tanks are rather prone to popping their turrets upon penetration. It is also clear that the overall issue of ammo cooking off in armored vehicles upon penetration has not been well addressed by the Russians and Soviets before them. The BMP-3 is a prime example of this. Developed well after the issue of popping turrets was known, the BMP-3 has no real measures to prevent a catastrophic ammo failure besides its hull and ERA armor. 

However, I was under the impression that when the Soviets (and later Russians) started developing more modernized versions of their tanks (T-72B, T-80BV, etc) they attempted to address the flying turret issue. I know that they did not eliminate the issue, but I was under the impression that they reduced its probability by a decent margin. I could be wrong here though.

 

And I just want to quickly point out that yes, I am aware that a catastrophic ammo explosion can happen to an Abrams (M1 to M1A2SEPv2, all models) as well. Unlucky hits, hit when the ammo doors are open, etc. No tank is perfect. Wanted to nip that potential point in the bud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ikalugin said:

If I may copy paste information kindly provided by BTR elsewhere:

"The source is a Republic Guard commander who server in #Khanaser front. This tank was hit back in Friday not yesterday as #ISIS said, it was operated by Al Fatemeyoon militia The tank got deeper into #ISIS territory with Shtora off expecting not to face anything but a 23MM gun the crew got surprised by an ATGM hit the upper turret section and knocked out many vision sights and the machine gun. and set it on fire, another ATGM was fired into the side of the tank and injured the driver. Then the commander and the gunner abandoned the tank without the diver. He was rescued after one hour. After several hours and due to the opened hatch the fire reached the ammo inside the tank and exploded. but the turret didn't went airborne. If the crew extinguished the fire up in the turret, the tank would've survived."

If this report is to be trusted, then the loss was completely avoidable if crew didnt screw up.

Here is the original tweet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I wasn't aware that the Leo 2 and Chally had exposed ammo storage (even if just partially) although now that I think about it, it does make some sense. Various logistical and mechanical concerns likely explain the design choice. 

When Sweden was looking for a new tank, to replace its ageing Centurions and S-tanks. The following was the candidates.

Leopard 2A4

Leopard 2i (Improved A5)

M1A1 (downgraded export armor)

M1A2 (downgraded export armor)

Challenger 1

Challenger 2

Leclerc

Merkava

Ariete

M84 (Serbian T-72)

T-80U

T-80BV

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Request for information, there was only four candidates left

Leo 2i

Leclerc

M1A2 (export armor)

Challenger 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Challenger 2 was partially dropped for the bad ammunition storage in its crewcompartment, and its underpowered engine. All though the official explanation was, that GB could not send tanks for evaluation.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

I will come back to this at a later time, now i have to go to sleep.

*Why Sweden did´nt want DU ammo ( We bought the best non DU Ammo from Israel at the time)

*Penetration of different ammo types

*The pros, and cons of DU ammo

*Test firing at armor modules of the candidates

*Armor of the candidates (M1A2 export armor)

Fuel consumtion in the tests, is a shortone, so i give it to you now:

Leclerc: 13,8 L/10km

Leopard 2i: 7,2 L/10km

M1A1: 14,8 L/10km

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/01/2017 at 10:17 AM, Armorgunner said:

But still, its ISIS propaganda. Was it a deserted tank they burned

Lol, wat? Is this the modern version of the Wehrmacht-apologist's "Oh, they never lost a tank you know. They just sportingly abandoned them for no good reason"?

Share this post


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

Lol, wat? Is this the modern version of the Wehrmacht-apologist's "Oh, they never lost a tank you know. They just sportingly abandoned them for no good reason"?

"Or was it a combat kill"

Read all text before you come with stupid things 

Share this post


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

Lol, wat? Is this the modern version of the Wehrmacht-apologist's "Oh, they never lost a tank you know. They just sportingly abandoned them for no good reason"?

The detailed story has already been posted here above.

From the original data you can see that the fire is external.

Share this post


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

The detailed story has already been posted here above.

From the original data you can see that the fire is external.

Except there appears to be flames spurting from the turret ring. Usually a bad sign.

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...