Jump to content
exsonic01

Turkish Leo2 tanks struggle in the Syria

Recommended Posts

IICptMillerII,

When I was living out in Burke, VA (a suburb, effectively, of Washington, DC), I got to go to a wonderful used bookstore--wonderful because there were so many military people in the area who read books of interest to me, during which I got a look at Dupuy's casualty estimates for what became GW 1. They made grim reading and were  on work using the  iconic (used for all sorts of military studies and analyses over a considerable number of years) QJM (Quantified Judgment Model. Yet Dupuy didn't merely wind up with egg on his face but more like the entire egg production of a sprawling chicken farm. Why?

The model failed to take into account such things as Day One massive destruction of key command facilities, the commandeering of fiber optic trunks to inject false military data, the surgical piercing and subsequent destruction of centralized control for air defenses, astronomic levels of bombing during Desert Shield which, while the bombing didn't kill all that many tanks, effectively destroyed the logistics and morale of troops who were generally hungry, thirsty for considerable periods and long abandoned by their officers well before the ground war began. It failed to account for the destruction of much of the Iraqi Air force in its previously practically impervious hardened shelters. It failed, as well, to account for wide scale employment of PSYOPS tech of the most revolutionary and highly classified sort.  There was no real appreciation for what the Tomahawk could do, either, still less when used in great numbers, or the soon to be dreaded "steel rain" from the MLRS. Nor did he know about the F-117 Stealth Fighter. This is by no means a complete list. Saddam had lots of veterans, but they were veterans of years of war profoundly and utterly unlike what they found themselves in. They got stomped as a result. The US and Coalition members brought their Cold War front bench, the real pros who would've faced the Russians in Germany, to the game, together with all their best toys and tactics, to include massed air power wielded with decisive force, speed and violence unprecedented in the history of air combat. The effect was shattering and simply not factored into the QJM's parameter set.

Custer was grossly outnumbered (9:1) and, we now know, completely outgunned. We know this thanks to comprehensive tracking of the movements of specific individuals via their cartridge brass uniquely identifiable by firing pin and extractor markings, recovered bullets and more. The Sioux moved freely about the field, crushing position after position, while Custer's men largely stayed put. We also know where those who fled died. Custer also left the withering firepower of Gatling guns behind. Imagine he missed them keenly when it was too late. The below is deemed the top analysis of the matter. It began as an article and became a very limited edition book. The author is C. Lee Noyes, frequent contributor to periodicals on the Wild West and the ACW, as well as the author of several other books.

$_1.JPG

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


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

armorgunner,

One also has the great distinction of having survived a Kornet hit.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/05/about-that-m60t-which-survived-kornet.html

Regards,

John Kettler

I have read all the posts on the "Below the turret ring" since its inception in 2015. Very informative site. But M60T you refer to, seems to have survived because it was hit diagonally so that the HEAT went through the armor only. And never threatened the crew compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armorgunner,

If I'm in the tank, I'm good with that. Please provide more detail on what looked to be a direct hit on the right side of the turret front. Or is what appears to be such a hit in fact some sort of undercut in the armor coupled with deep shadow? Did the combination of Kornet impact axis and turret angle cause the HEAT jet to pierce the add-on armor between its outside and the primary turret structure? 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


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

Armorgunner,

If I'm in the tank, I'm good with that. Please provide more detail on what looked to be a direct hit on the right side of the turret front. Or is what appears to be such a hit in fact some sort of undercut in the armor coupled with deep shadow? Did the combination of Kornet impact axis and turret angle cause the HEAT jet to pierce the add-on armor between its outside and the primary turret structure? 

Regards,

John Kettler

Well it was your link, i took the details from. According to them, thats the way the HEAT jet took.

"This means that the missile passed the gun barrel and impact on the frontal armor below the gunner's sight at an angle, which made it impossible to hit the base turret behind the armor. The missile's impact path was facing away from the turret. The large module of spaced hybrid armor was probably the only reason why the missile detonated, otherwise it most likely would have missed given the extremely sleek turret cheeks of the M60 tank!

Did the M60T survive a Kornet missile? Yes. Would the missile have hit the tank, if it wasn't for the additional armor module? Most likely not. If the missile had more penetration power, could it have penetrated the M60T's turret and killed the crew? Based on the angle from the video footage, no."

FGPNsnS.jpg

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that said. The Kornet is a bad ass missile. And it should penetrate both M60T, and Leo 2A4 frontally, if it hits right on. The Leo 2A4 stops a BGM-71B in the frontal 30 degree arc (That i know from irl tests). BGM-71C, dubious. 

Improved Leopard 2´s stops more, of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armorgunner,

Thanks for the explanation, most useful photo and for the unplanned resultant trip you took me on Nostalgia Road. Why? The M60T is in Woodland Pattern, what US military vehicles were routinely painted in during the Cold War,.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

I your handle based on affinity or being/having been one? If so, details, please.

Share this post


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

Armorgunner,

Thanks for the explanation, most useful photo and for the unplanned resultant trip you took me on Nostalgia Road. Why? The M60T is in Woodland Pattern, what US military vehicles were routinely painted in during the Cold War,.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

I your handle based on affinity or being/having been one? If so, details, please.

After I did my military service for 12 months in the armored forces as a conscript platoon commander (PB). I stayed in the Army. Joined officers school for three years, and became a Second Lieutenant. But after a few years the better knowing politicians felt that Russia was no longer a threat. And never, ever going to be one again, against any country. So, our once mighty defense, went from 31 brigades. To 16 when I started. Until now, only two brigades. In the late 80´s, Sweden was able to mobilize 850,000 soldiers in just 72 hours. In the late 50's, Sweden had the world's fourth largest air force. With aircraft that was among the best in the world at the time.

Today, the Swedish defense is described as a political security hole in northern Europe. Although we have good equipment, and good soldiers. Is it very tiny.

So i was forced to leave the army around the turn of the century. When it would never ever be war again. "Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain 30 September 1938. But as of today, i have a job, wife and children. So even if i´m a little bit concerned of Russia's aggressions. Pretty happy anyway

After that, Russia has for the past nine years, attacked and occupied parts of three countries. And still have troops in parts of them as of 2017. Transnistria in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Many believe that the Baltics will be next. Not me. I think that Russia will leave troops in Belarus, after this year's gigantic exercise Zapad 2017 (West 2017), and in peaceful manners take over control of the country. (Hybrid warfare). But that's just what I think

Edited by Armorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armorgunner,

Yours is quite the story, framed in the context of a much bigger picture. Fervently hope your nation does some serious rebuilding, for your force levels are pretty scary, especially in light of the figures for what they once were. As a little boy, I once got a little plastic snap together model in my cereal of the distinctive in appearance Saab J-29, which I later concluded was heavily influenced by late war German designs never built, such as the Me P 1001.

J_29F.jpgSubsequently, in In high school, I built a real model of the wicked looking JF 37 Viggen. And somewhere along the line I heard about the hangars carved out of rock, their armored doors and planes hanging from overhead so their tires stayed inflated. All I ever had then were a few photos, so to see it on full motion video was a real treat.

Viggen.JPG 

But while those were cool, nothing topped the radical mind-blowing Stridsvagn 103 S-Tank. Didn't know it could swim, but the ability of it to squat via the amazing hydropneumatic suspension, the unheard of fixed gun mount, autoloader; its spectacular lines and dazzling design not only blew my mind and captured my fancy, but somewhat quelled my tank purist "must have a turret" insistence. That said, the first tanks had none. Maybe your country  should build a bigger one with a 120 mm gun, ATGMs or both!
 

Back then, Tamiya tank models were motorized, and one of my brothers had one he'd run about the yard. I did the same with my AMX-30. Did you by chance serve in them. If not, what, please?

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

John, the chances of ANYONE being able to serve in a Tamiya tank which your brother ran about the yard would be extremely small...smaller even than he'd have to be to fit in one.

Parsing is fun!

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, c3k said:

^^^

John, the chances of ANYONE being able to serve in a Tamiya tank which your brother ran about the yard would be extremely small...smaller even than he'd have to be to fit in one.

Parsing is fun!

;)

:D:D:D I know that Russian tank crews cant be to big. But to serve on one of Johns Tamiyas, you really have to be tiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Your got me! As the British say, fair cop. Not much in the way of creature comforts in them, either, there being no seats or, for that matter, any interior at all. It, my AMX-30, a Tiger I and my Su-100 all perished in The Great Model Destruction caused by our crash move to the other coast in my senior year of high school. One by one they succumbed to pellet gun fire and were duly set ablaze, along with the model planes. Small black pillars rose to the sky before being doused, lest the fire department be called. Happily, they weren't very well executed models as far as standards of detail and finish. 

Regards,

John kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank T-62M delivered from Russia, the Syrian army. Not your  "Leopard 2".

 

Танк Т-62М поставленный из России , Сирийской армии . Это вам не "Леопард-2" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/02/2017 at 3:26 AM, John Kettler said:

IICptMillerII,

When I was living out in Burke, VA (a suburb, effectively, of Washington, DC), I got to go to a wonderful used bookstore--wonderful because there were so many military people in the area who read books of interest to me, during which I got a look at Dupuy's casualty estimates for what became GW 1. They made grim reading and were  on work using the  iconic (used for all sorts of military studies and analyses over a considerable number of years) QJM (Quantified Judgment Model. Yet Dupuy didn't merely wind up with egg on his face but more like the entire egg production of a sprawling chicken farm. Why?

The model failed to take into account such things as Day One massive destruction of key command facilities, the commandeering of fiber optic trunks to inject false military data, the surgical piercing and subsequent destruction of centralized control for air defenses, astronomic levels of bombing during Desert Shield which, while the bombing didn't kill all that many tanks, effectively destroyed the logistics and morale of troops who were generally hungry, thirsty for considerable periods and long abandoned by their officers well before the ground war began. It failed to account for the destruction of much of the Iraqi Air force in its previously practically impervious hardened shelters. It failed, as well, to account for wide scale employment of PSYOPS tech of the most revolutionary and highly classified sort.  There was no real appreciation for what the Tomahawk could do, either, still less when used in great numbers, or the soon to be dreaded "steel rain" from the MLRS. Nor did he know about the F-117 Stealth Fighter. This is by no means a complete list. Saddam had lots of veterans, but they were veterans of years of war profoundly and utterly unlike what they found themselves in. They got stomped as a result. The US and Coalition members brought their Cold War front bench, the real pros who would've faced the Russians in Germany, to the game, together with all their best toys and tactics, to include massed air power wielded with decisive force, speed and violence unprecedented in the history of air combat. The effect was shattering and simply not factored into the QJM's parameter set.

Custer was grossly outnumbered (9:1) and, we now know, completely outgunned. We know this thanks to comprehensive tracking of the movements of specific individuals via their cartridge brass uniquely identifiable by firing pin and extractor markings, recovered bullets and more. The Sioux moved freely about the field, crushing position after position, while Custer's men largely stayed put. We also know where those who fled died. Custer also left the withering firepower of Gatling guns behind. Imagine he missed them keenly when it was too late. The below is deemed the top analysis of the matter. It began as an article and became a very limited edition book. The author is C. Lee Noyes, frequent contributor to periodicals on the Wild West and the ACW, as well as the author of several other books.

$_1.JPG

Regards,

John Kettler


I found Red Sabbath : The battle of Little Bighorn by Robert Kershaw to be an excellent read John. He tracks the battle though every stage using the bullet cartridge evidence. It wasn't so much a battle as a rout. As a poster above said it was a strategic loss. Once the attack order by Custer was given the tactical battle was lost - it was just a matter of how badly Custer's force would suffer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎03 at 0:18 PM, John Kettler said:

Armorgunner,

But while those were cool, nothing topped the radical mind-blowing Stridsvagn 103 S-Tank. Didn't know it could swim, but the ability of it to squat via the amazing hydropneumatic suspension, the unheard of fixed gun mount, autoloader; its spectacular lines and dazzling design not only blew my mind and captured my fancy, but somewhat quelled my tank purist "must have a turret" insistence. That said, the first tanks had none. Maybe your country  should build a bigger one with a 120 mm gun, ATGMs or both!
 

Did you by chance serve in them. If not, what, please?

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi John, sorry we teased you earlier :D

I did my conscript service as a commander of an PBV 302 IFV/APC. After my years at the military academy, it was just the Strv 121 (Leo 2a4) and Strv 122 (Leo 2a5 improved). there was education for conscripts on. The S-tank was still in mobilization units. But no new crews was educated on it. The Strv 104 ( modernized Centurion ) Was still in active service (education/conscript) on the island of Gotland though.

Share this post


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

Why were these Swedish tanks phased out?  Presumably they had a flaw that made them unsuccessful?

I think the simple answer is that we were not involved in any military conflicts during its time. Don't know if we exported any. Also, its main intention was in a defensive role as it couldn't fire on the move. But it could get a hull down position in a puddle of water due to its low profile ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rocketman,

No, I didn't, but I can certainly see why. The British, flying their practically painted on Spitfires, used to say to the P-47 Thunderbolt pilots something to the effect of "If the enemy starts shooting, you can get out of your seat and run around inside."

Armorgunner,

Had some vague collection of what your service steed (whose automotive qualities appear superior to the M113 on the same course) looked like, but figured a refresher video would help. And how! This is some sort of Swedish AFV history event, and what's in the video is simply astounding to someone not schooled in the matter and getting to see some vehicles for the very first time. All you treadheads, watch this! Found the tankette and previously unknown to me Czech 38 chassis based light AFV of keen interest.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

rocketman,

No, I didn't, but I can certainly see why. The British, flying their practically painted on Spitfires, used to say to the P-47 Thunderbolt pilots something to the effect of "If the enemy starts shooting, you can get out of your seat and run around inside."

Armorgunner,

Had some vague collection of what your service steed (whose automotive qualities appear superior to the M113 on the same course) looked like, but figured a refresher video would help. And how! This is some sort of Swedish AFV history event, and what's in the video is simply astounding to someone not schooled in the matter and getting to see some vehicles for the very first time. All you treadheads, watch this! Found the tankette and previously unknown to me Czech 38 chassis based light AFV of keen interest.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

I'm in a hurry,  so this have to be a short one. The auto cannon on the pbv 302 is actually an upside down mount, of an ex J-29 "flying barrel"  auto cannon. The banana looking exhaust pipe on the you tube clip you linked. Was something we found out in Bosnia in 1994, that we neded. The regular exhaust, is just a hole in the roof. Even if it is called an APC, It was one of the worlds first IFV's. With opening roof hatches, with four combat soldiers on each side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rocketman said:

I think the simple answer is that we were not involved in any military conflicts during its time. Don't know if we exported any. Also, its main intention was in a defensive role as it couldn't fire on the move. But it could get a hull down position in a puddle of water due to its low profile ;)

 

I understand that.  But, if it was a successful design, one would see more of that sort of AFV in future versions.  Am curious why the concept was abandoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2017 at 9:15 PM, Rinaldi said:

Every example brings counter-example. Islandwala. Adwa, the Christmas Offensive - which is perhaps the most laughable of them all. Things must be brought in context. A well deployed, well led, force with sustainable technological advantages will generally defeat an enemy. But you don't always get the dream-team.

The point being that while the MBT design should always strive towards perfection, this reveals a lot less the fatal flaws in their designs than it does in their deployment. This even goes for the tanks that get their turrets tossed like a discus, is it the T-72M1s fault it gets crushed by an ATGM team or is it the apathetic Syrian officer who put it there? Being a total moron can negate quite a bit of your combat power.

Using infantry to screen tanks Will prevent huge losses to tanks near built up areas (grosnyy style) but you Will still lose some tanks. Losing 10-15 tanks out of a hundred is okay . This is what's happening to the Turks.

 

Also There is not Much you can do against well hidden infiltrated ATGM teams sniping from 3-4km. You Will lose tanks good Tactics or not. Thats where tech comes in   It can prevent normally unavoidable losses some of the Times but it wont  save you from bad Tactics or deployment.APS would have saved those tanks and revealed the launcher so it can be destroyed by Return fire.

People want no losses . Thats just not possible against a well-equipped and semi to fully competent enemy.

 

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Erwin said:

Why were these Swedish tanks phased out?  Presumably they had a flaw that made them unsuccessful?

They were developed during a time when the stabilization of the guns, and ammo were in their infancy. The US army found out  during tests in the US that they were faster to a shot from the move, than M60 Patton. And they were very fast firing, only 3 seconds between every shot.  But time caught up, as the stabilization of guns got better. The armour was based on well-slope and not particular thick IIRC only 60mm for the top plate. But it was enough during the 70's, but with more modern amunition types, which did not bother of sloped armour. The S-tank was not very well protected at the late 80´s. In the early 90´s Sweden bought 5 earlier east german T-72M1 from Germany, In test firings against the S-Tank. The APFSDS rod went right through.  We developed a model (Strv 103D) with ceramic armor as a alternative to buy the Leopard 2, but it was rejected.

The Strv 103D with ceramic armor

strv103-ts1-web.jpg

Share this post


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

Armorgunner,

Had some vague collection of what your service steed (whose automotive qualities appear superior to the M113 on the same course) looked like, but figured a refresher video would help. And how! This is some sort of Swedish AFV history event, and what's in the video is simply astounding to someone not schooled in the matter and getting to see some vehicles for the very first time. All you treadheads, watch this! Found the tankette and previously unknown to me Czech 38 chassis based light AFV of keen interest.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Actually a PBV 302 was hit by a ATGM in the left side, in Bosnia in 1994. IIRC it was estimated that it was an AT-3 Sagger. Had the hit happened in Syria now, and been filmed. We had heard Allahu akbar screams, and then the film had stopped. But the HEAT jet went under the gunners seat and behind the backs of the driver and commander, and out on the other side . The gunner was slightly wounded by shrapnel, but was back in service the same evening. Those 50 PBV 302´s that was in Bosnia, where epuipped with a fibreglass liner and that could have saved the crew from more severe injuries. A few months after the ATGM hit, They were added a ceramic addon armor also.

PBV 302 with ceramic addon armor.

pbv302_01.jpg

Share this post


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

Actually a PBV 302 was hit by a ATGM in the left side, in Bosnia in 1994. IIRC it was estimated that it was an AT-3 Sagger. Had the hit happened in Syria now, and been filmed. We had heard Allahu akbar screams, and then the film had stopped. But the HEAT jet went under the gunners seat and behind the backs of the driver and commander, and out on the other side . The gunner was slightly wounded by shrapnel, but was back in service the same evening. Those 50 PBV 302´s that was in Bosnia, where epuipped with a fibreglass liner and that could have saved the crew from more severe injuries. A few months after the ATGM hit, They were added a ceramic addon armor also.

PBV 302 with ceramic addon armor.

pbv302_01.jpg

Here´s a picture of the ATGM hit PBV 302 in Bosnia

15337408_1842901772620360_39491363926091

Share this post


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

They were developed during a time when the stabilization of the guns, and ammo were in their infancy. The US army found out  during tests in the US that they were faster to a shot from the move, than M60 Patton. And they were very fast firing, only 3 seconds between every shot.  But time caught up, as the stabilization of guns got better. The armour was based on well-slope and not particular thick IIRC only 60mm for the top plate. But it was enough during the 70's, but with more modern amunition types, which did not bother of sloped armour. The S-tank was not very well protected at the late 80´s. In the early 90´s Sweden bought 5 earlier east german T-72M1 from Germany, In test firings against the S-Tank. The APFSDS rod went right through.  We developed a model (Strv 103D) with ceramic armor as a alternative to buy the Leopard 2, but it was rejected.

The Strv 103D with ceramic armor

strv103-ts1-web.jpg

Thank you for the concise and informative answer.

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...