Jump to content
MikeyD

Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

Recommended Posts

Good stuff, guys.

Just some harmless jawing here while we wait, but S2 what's the backstory and objective of this Turkish border crossing? 1. an incursion or raid to kill or capture specific Kurds enemies, or is it 2. to ethnically cleanse secure a longer term buffer zone?

If a town or city fight is involved, as you imply, in the former case, you're in for a very risky coup de main/VIP snatch-or-kill type operation, a la my 2012 Baba Amr scenario.

In the latter case, isn't it better to bypass and seal off the towns at first, securing the countryside and then figuring out how best to root/starve out the urban holdouts? I believe negotiated safe conduct has been the preferred resolution, even with ISIS.

Either way, about the last thing you'd want is a Pyrrhic mini-Mosul, leveling block after block for weeks, plus bereaved Turkish mums (and generals) cursing the Great Hetman.

This is just for friendly discussion, not criticising (people here seem a tad prickly of late).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I was just doing my usual experimentation to see what I could build.....I actually deleted my first batch of Turkish stuff when the 'coup' took place, seemed in bad taste at the time.....Decided to remake it when they actually did cross the Syrian border. 

As to the backstory.....Exactly as you suggest, drive the Kurds from a series of border towns, replacing them with the FSA.

Fortuitously the (IIRC) German campaign is set in the general vicinity of Al Bab, which is pretty much spot on. 

The Turkish core is built around a mechanised battalion, plus another battalion of Turkmen FSA militia types and irregulars, my intent is for (roughly company sized) units to appear briefly in various areas with a specific mission, very few will reappear in any subsequent scenarios (due to deadness in many cases).

As I said I got badly bogged rebuilding the urban centre on the map, it's very sprawling and not at all neatly laid out, so getting all the buidings how I like 'em has proved challenging.....Haven't looked at it in a long time TBH, but I can always dig it out and do the edits in the new game (assuming all works as expected on that front) if there's any interest?

11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I believe negotiated safe conduct has been the preferred resolution, even with ISIS.

All doable with the new engine, but green trucks will have to do for green busses.....We have exit zones and we're gonna use 'em!  ;)

The Kurds should put up a better fight in CM:SF2, or a more realistic one at any rate, hopefully the urge to flee in silly directions when under fire will have been toned down a little.....Although it does quite suit the Abu Hajars out there!  :ph34r:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costly in hardware & prestige would be my personal summary.....They lost the best part of a company of Leopard 2A4s (I believe there's a full list of Turkish AFV losses posted elsewhere on the site). 

EDIT - I think it's in this thread:

1119.jpg?x81896

The list above covers the fighting for Al-Bab, there was more.....Quite a lot more as I recall.  :unsure:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its odd that in all our years of war I've never seen or heard of a report of a US vehicle being struck by an ATGM. There was that one report during the run to Baghdad of a possible Kornet hit to an Abrams that caused considerable panic at the Pentagon, until the incident was downgraded to an RPG hit, I think. Whenever we were shown photos of captured arms caches it was always piles of RPG or rccl gun but not an ATGM to be found. Either we've been very lucky or any incident regarding an ATGM was labeled 'classified'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

They lost the best part of a company of Leopard 2A4s

If true, that's "Holy Cow!".  Need to buy shares in whoever is building and selling them the things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of reading that Germany in WWII lost a fairly regular 200 Panthers a month, with the exception of a mid-winter month or two. Those were considered the finest, best armored 'medium' tanks of the war. US Abrams loss statistics in Iraq are so low because the vehicle had to be entirely burned-out before if was considered 'knocked out'. I believe the number of 'not knocked out' Abrams in Iraq eventually passed the thousand mark, some of them needing significant rebuilds multiple times. There was one notable repair instance (that I only vaguely recall because I can't locate my sources) were two halves of an Abrams were welded back together. Perhaps the repair depot was in Dubai, perhaps the UAE.

Share this post


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

the number of 'not knocked out' Abrams in Iraq eventually passed the thousand mark, some of them needing significant rebuilds multiple times

Astonishing number...  Certainly doesn't support the myth of virtual invincibility that even I bought into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the Abrams in CM:SF a lot less obnoxious than in CM:BS (having a few extra varieties to choose from helps of course), but I do feel it & (even more so) the Bradley are a bit overrated in all the games.....The Bradley's performance in CM:BS is such that it begs the question why the US would need to deploy Abrams at all.  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The Bradley's performance in CM:BS is such that it begs the question why the US would need to deploy Abrams at all.  :unsure:

I am not sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying the Bradley can take on T90s and win more then they loose? 'Cause that's just nuts. Clearly as a T90 driver a Bradley is a threat by they are also easy pickings. I just finished a game where one of my T90s took out two Bradley IFVs with one shot (yeah that might have been over the top:-). That pretty much finished the game. A T90 should have respect for a Bradley as they aim, fire and take it out :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

why the US would need to deploy Abrams at all.

As with most expensive weapons systems, it's to keep defense manufacturers earning massive profits.  How is someone like me supposed to enjoy my villas in France, New Zealand and Hainan Island and pay for my collection of private jets???!!   You a commie or something?!!

Edit: Ooops.  No offence intended to my Chinese overlords.  I really like my Hainan Island place.  Thank you...

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The Bradley's performance in CM:BS is such that it begs the question why the US would need to deploy Abrams at all.  :unsure:

While both of the previous answers to this rhetorical questions are valid. I think we often DO forget why we need tanks (MBTs), at all?

In the early 2000s, when Canada got involved in Afghanistan. Government figured that tanks would be useless in that scenario, planning to replacing MBTs with IFVs. Instead, there proved to be not only a demand for tanks, but a demand for newer tanks than the Leo 1 derivatives. They even borrowed Leo 2a6s from the Germans. As the mission wrapped up, very recently, they actually replaced C2s with Leo 2a4 variants.

So what are tanks good for? If not for fighting other tanks? Modern ATGMs are getting better and a platform like a Bradley can do that. Tanks were originally conceived as an answer to the static fighting of WW1. Smashing through trenches, demolishing pillboxes and taking a beating -- so the infantry won't have to. Tank on tank engagements were unheard of until the Spanish Civil War. It would still take years after for nations to start focusing on anti-tank capabilities of tanks.

Much like cavalry of old, an MBT smashes through defensive lines, much as they did in WW1. For this task, they need the heaviest armour and the biggest guns. IFVs carry and support infantry, they are not meant to spearhead into the enemy's kill zone. To this day, you can watch tanks smashing through barriers in Ghouta and demolishing infantry fortifications made from rubble. Infantry and their IFVs come after, and clean up. If they roll into the killzone, they'll become a burning wreck. Guess what the 2a4s in Afrin were there for?

This World of Tanks culture, partly inspired by defensive tank tactics of NATO in West Germany, has put emphasis on AFVs fighting other AFVs. While this is, no doubt, still a priority, the infantry still rules the modern battlefield. Fighting holed up infantry isn't as glamorous as tank duels, but it's the reality 90% of the time. Using the performance of an AFV in aduel as a metric really does a disservice to a lot of these vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if we need a new type of AFV -designed not to fight other tanks with very sophisticated systems, but an inexpensive and more heavily armored "tractor" to move a large "demolition" weapon safely to where it's needed to blow up defensive positions.

Seems ridiculous to create ever more sophisticated and expensive systems like MBT's and aircraft delivering JDAMS when one needs a simple and more heavily armored "bulldozer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It's almost as if we need a new type of AFV -designed not to fight other tanks with very sophisticated systems, but an inexpensive and more heavily armored "tractor" to move a large "demolition" weapon safely to where it's needed to blow up defensive positions.

Seems ridiculous to create ever more sophisticated and expensive systems like MBT's and aircraft delivering JDAMS when one needs a simple and more heavily armored "bulldozer".

Are you serious?

We need to produce well armored slow moving "bulldozers" to deliver explosives on defensive positions instead of tanks that can move quickly and shoot?

Somehow this armored "bull dozer" will also remove the need for GPS guided air dropped munitions?

I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about. If you can't see the tactical value of being able to drop a bomb that can land within 1-2 meters of a target from 36,000 feet at 520mph then i'm afraid you need to read up on modern warfare.

 

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It's almost as if we need a new type of AFV -designed not to fight other tanks with very sophisticated systems, but an inexpensive and more heavily armored "tractor" to move a large "demolition" weapon safely to where it's needed to blow up defensive positions.

Seems ridiculous to create ever more sophisticated and expensive systems like MBT's and aircraft delivering JDAMS when one needs a simple and more heavily armored "bulldozer".

abv_assault_breacher_vehicle_heavy_engin

Enter the Armoured Breacher Vehicle, nick-named Shredder. It launches a rocket propelled line charge, clearing a path for its mates. Gotta love the USMC.

There's plenty of other MBT engineering vehicles. They've been around for a long time.

31423401550_178c1bd1d3_b.jpg

220px-Centurion-AVRE-165-Fosgene.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDVI4TcCigVFmBv2IcTsn

Wish we had these beauties in CM...

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


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

I am not sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying the Bradley can take on T90s and win more then they loose?

This has been my experience.....Maybe I've been appallingly unlucky with my T-90s, but I've had three move simultaneously to hull down positions on a timed command with tight covered arcs to engage a single hull down (AI controlled) Bradley, then reverse away after sufficient time for two to three shots.  The Bradley took out one with a TOW almost instantly, long before the T-90s got a spot (only one ever did and it missed with the only shot it fired before retreating) and it got a second T-90 before the reverse move was completed.  Both hits were kills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:

If you can't see the tactical value of being able to drop a bomb that can land within 1-2 meters of a target from 36,000 feet at 520mph then i'm afraid you need to read up on modern warfare.

Everything is about cost and logistics.  If you add up the cost to develop, manufacture and maintain an incredibly expensive and sophisticated weapons system like the F35 just so it can drop a precision munition on a building with a couple uncons in it and compare it to the cost of a simple heavily armored tractor (that does not require all the bells and whistles of an Abrams) which is capable of safely delivering (say) a 300mm+ demo charge on the same target from a few dozen meters away...

The argument that it's cost effective to use a javelin to kill each individual uncon armed with a sniper rifle x thousands is how empires get bankrupted.  (And how defense contractors get very, very rich on our tax dollars.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Everything is about cost and logistics.  If you add up the cost to develop, manufacture and maintain an incredibly expensive and sophisticated weapons system like the F35 just so it can drop a precision munition on a building with a couple uncons in it and compare it to the cost of a simple heavily armored tractor (that does not require all the bells and whistles of an Abrams) which is capable of safely delivering (say) a 300mm+ demo charge on the same target from a few dozen meters away...

The argument that it's cost effective to use a javelin to kill each individual uncon armed with a sniper rifle x thousands is how empires get bankrupted.  (And how defense contractors get very, very rich on our tax dollars.)  

You're right it is expensive to drop sophisticated weapons on uncons. However if the balloon goes up you won't be degrading Chinas IADS in the pacific with "armored tractors", so yes the F-35 is incredibly expensive but worth it for what it needs to do.

This argument is incredibly silly, if you can't tell whats wrong with making an "armored tractor" that shoots a demo charge "a few dozen meters away" over a freaking main battle tank I don't think we are going to go anywhere. Have you played CM? Would you like trying to fight against the Germans with a 105 sherman that has its range limited to 30 meters?

Come on man.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to read posts more carefully.  Nowhere did I say we should abandon all our expensive toys. 

Was simply pointing out that using a steam hammer to crack a walnut is waste of resources and only benefits the steam hammer manufacturer - especially when the  steam hammer is so sophisticated that it has to be completely and expensively renovated after each use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just popped up on BBC New website tracking the extent of Turkish outposts in Syria. By coincidence, just a three days ago I was reworking the AI orders in a game battle that took place in Jisr al-Shughour

Turkish bases.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff!

For those interested in the meta background on how Turkey went from NATO stalwart and EU aspirant to... well, today's situation, this is a pretty good summary:

https://adamtooze.com/2018/08/19/framing-crashed-4-the-turkish-crisis-the-missing-chapter/

Refugee situation pretty dire as well.... 

Screen-Shot-2018-08-12-at-8.01.15-AM.png

Edited by LongLeftFlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting stuff!

For those interested in the meta background on how Turkey went from NATO stalwart and EU aspirant to... well, today's situation, this is a pretty good summary:

https://adamtooze.com/2018/08/19/framing-crashed-4-the-turkish-crisis-the-missing-chapter/

Refugee situation pretty dire as well.... 

 

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article.  However, I only skimmed it and didn't notice the important aspect of EU coming to realize that incorporating Turkey into EU would open the floodgates to massive Islamic immigration - an increasingly serious problem in Europe already.  The WSJ recently had articles illustrating how Muslims are well on the way to creating a parallel Sharia legal system, where they can go instead of to British courts etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×