Ivanov

What do you mean by that? There's no unified European army and every country is designing camo patters by itself. Apart from the practical issues, the uniform shows the national identity - I just can't imagine for example Polish army wearing the same uniforms as the Germans, despite of the fact that they are allies. Re the video: it's a compilation of few videos actually, they were all staged spectacles for the press - I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the tactics from it. It's like those infamous shows for the VIP's were the team performs helicopter insertion 100 meters from a building occupied by the terrorists.

The riffle is called Beryl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB_Beryl The camo patter is wz.93 Pantera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._93_Pantera Note that both are due to be replaced. A new Polish riffle: http://www.military-today.com/firearms/msbs.htm And a new camo pattern:

It's one of the best sources available on the net. Almost as they were professionals.

But in this case it's almost certain that the Leopards were blown up after the capture or bombed by Turkish air force ( the first option being more probable ).

Meanwhile IS bombed Iraqi Abrams from a home-made drone. http://i.imgur.com/q1rZSeM.gifv

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.

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? Possible hit by artillery:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Apparently this chart comes from the official Turkish sources:

The loss of 10 Leopards has been officially confirmed by the Turkish Army. South Front is a pro Russian source but it doesn't mean that they lie all the time - they just report what is convenient from their point of view. For example the destruction of the Leopard 2 myth is a nice payback for the myth of flying turrets of T-72. Leopard 2 is a main tank of most of the European NATO armies.

All Turkish Leopards have been hit from the side or from the rear. They were in stationary positions, without the infantry support, essentially sitting ducks. If anything the loses are a statement of very poor tactics employed by the so called "second NATO army". One could argue, it could be a result of the recent purges in Turkish army, but they probably affected mostly the higher echelons. The bad tactics employed in Al-bab should be blamed on the lower rank commanders. BTW the Turks also lost few upgraded M-60's equipped wit additional ERA. Similarly the Saudis are losing Abrams in Yemen. So no equipment is immune to the bad tactics.

OK. Well in general modern armies wouldn't employ the heavy machine guns with their infantry teams. You may see them in some irregular conflicts, with more unprofessional/irregular belligerents, that scrap heavy machine guns some older vehicles. But modern armies field medium machine guns because they allow them to be more mobile in the field. I'm surprised that US player has an option of purchasing .50 Caliber Machine Gun. I haven't seen that before.

The Russian machine gun teams available in CMBS are called PKP or PKM and you can pick them from the specialist team list in QB setting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecheneg_machine_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_machine_gun

The problem is that in 4.0 this behavior seems to be exaggerated.

After playing sometime with 3.0, I'm not too happy with how the infantry acts right now under fire. I got an entire squad running away in a random direction under fire from one enemy rifleman ( in CMBS game ). This doesn't seem realistic and is frankly suicidal. I think I'll start using 3.0 again.

Placing tank in a hull down position has two benefits: 1. The tank in hull down represents a smaller target. 2. It exposes the best protected part of the vehicle, which usually is the turret. So this discussion is relevant only in case of Panzer IV starting from the H model, which had an additional 30mm armor plate added to the front hull ( earlier models had turret and front hull equally protected ). Anyway in real combat it is the turret that receives something like 80% of all the hits.

Thank you guys for you replies.

OK, it has to be it. I don't se the issue with the new games. BTW my opponent that still uses 3.0 is unable to load my turn save after I've upgraded to 4.0. Is it possible to install 3.0 and 4.0 on one computer?

After upgrading ( issue present both in CMRT and CMBS ), the smoke looks like fireballs. subir imagen

You need to introduce the serial number of the base game, not the update serial.

So in that case the tank is supposed to stop movement when it encounters a perfect hull down spot?