Turkish Leo2 tanks struggle in the Syria

[akd]

Anyways, Syria is where turrets go to learn to fly.

[Ivanov]

14 minutes ago, akd said:

Anyways, Syria is where turrets go to learn to fly.

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 ). 

[akd]

Looks like hull ammo detonated, whatever the precursor was.

Edited January 27, 2017 by akd

[HerrTom]

That's pretty damn impressive if it managed to blow part of the glacis plate off, let alone the entire corner of the tank...

[IICptMillerII]

Technicalities aside, I think all of this just goes to show; if you want to see expensive, advanced hardware get the crap blown out of it, send it to the Middle East. Soviet gear, Russian gear, NATO gear and US gear have all been sent over the years, and all of it has been blown to smithereens.

[John Kettler]

On 1/27/2017 at 10:29 AM, akd said:

Anyways, Syria is where turrets go to learn to fly.

Given all the wild rhetoric, I suppose we should be grateful it isn't "Syria is where Iron Crosses grow." Wish we had some other angles on that Leopard which is really quite sincerely dead. These would help to reveal the ground conformation near the tank remnants. All that blackened ground makes it exceedingly tough to suss out its contours. There may or may not be a crater in all that darkness. Concur that the ammo in the port bow (it is a landship, right?) has exploded, regardless of causation, but what intrigues me is that there's still a fair amount of unburnt paint on an otherwise scorched hull carcass.

IICaptainMillierII,

Someone should make a cartoon on that theme. Maybe a split panel. It would show tanks in garrison  from various nations being told to saddle up and get ready to move out. When the question's asked "Where are we going?" the tanks cry out in unison in shock and dismay "But everything that goes there dies!" Am afraid I can't help with the art.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JUAN DEAG]

On 1/27/2017 at 9:29 AM, akd said:

 

 

Does anyone know what destroyed vehicle positioned between the two destroyed Leopards is called?

[gnarly]

11 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Does anyone know what destroyed vehicle positioned between the two destroyed Leopards is called?

One of these?

 

By Otokar?

 

(Just me googling; there's a good chance the vehicle I have linked above is actually not an Otokar..!)  ;D

Edited February 1, 2017 by gnarly

[John Kettler]

JUAN DEAG,

8 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Does anyone know what destroyed vehicle positioned between the two destroyed Leopards is called?

Definitively M-Killed.  Witticisms aside, I believe gnarly's right. This coming from a man who doesn't have a handle on the diverse MRAPS and whatnot in the US Army.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Machor]

13 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Does anyone know what destroyed vehicle positioned between the two destroyed Leopards is called?

It's the Otokar Akrep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokar_Akrep ).

[Armorgunner]

Now the Turks has discovered that their tanks is vulnerable to ATGM's

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/turkey-launches-500-million-upgrade-program-for-200-german-and-us-made-battle-tanks/

[IICptMillerII]

39 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Now the Turks has discovered that their tanks is vulnerable to ATGM's

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/turkey-launches-500-million-upgrade-program-for-200-german-and-us-made-battle-tanks/

This is a good example of wasteful defense spending. They could potentially spend all that money to upgrade the tanks that they have, only to get them all destroyed by making the same mistakes as last time. Instead of blowing $500 million on new upgrades, how about investing some man hours into classroom time and field exercises that teach the necessity of supporting armored units with infantry and other elements? Classic example of throwing money at a problem hoping to magically fix it.   

[Erwin]

It's the classic military industry sales pitch: Spend beaucoup $ on very expensive technology but skimp on spending money on human resources.  Not as profitable as getting contracts to maintain, repair and replace major weapons systems. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Erwin

[Armorgunner]

13 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is a good example of wasteful defense spending. They could potentially spend all that money to upgrade the tanks that they have, only to get them all destroyed by making the same mistakes as last time. Instead of blowing $500 million on new upgrades, how about investing some man hours into classroom time and field exercises that teach the necessity of supporting armored units with infantry and other elements? Classic example of throwing money at a problem hoping to magically fix it.   

I agree 100%

But the Turks maybe dont know what to do with all their money? 

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

It's the classic military industry sales pitch: Spend beaucoup $ on very expensive technology but skimp on spending money on human resources.  Not as profitable as getting contracts to maintain, repair and replace major weapons systems. 

I agree with the basis of what you're saying, but I think it has more to do with trying to take the easy way out (throw money at it to make it better) than it has to do with an over-engorged military industrial complex. If I were a military contractor opportunist, I would use this as an excuse to push for an entire new tank, or something along those lines. That would be a more profitable and longer lasting thing to do than just an upgrade package.

The Turkish employment of their forces seems to suggest that they think that ISIS can be simply defeated because the Turkish military has expensive shiny toys. The Turks are not the only nation to suffer from this hubris complex, practically all NATO nations involved in combat operations against ISIS (specifically the US) falls into this trap as well. The idea that a technologically inferior enemy can simply be bombed/teched to death has never been proven to be true through all of military history. A return to basics would be beneficial to all parties involved. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by IICptMillerII

[cool breeze]

What about Gulf War 1 and 2, or the introduction of the machine gun against the Zulu?

[IICptMillerII]

12 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

What about Gulf War 1 and 2, or the introduction of the machine gun against the Zulu?

Without writing an entire essay on the topic:

Gulf War 1: Most experts (military historians, those in the military, etc) will tell you that one of the biggest advantage the US had over the Iraqi's ended up being the training and competency of individuals. US tank crewmen were much better trained, and had a lot more practical field time in their tanks than their Iraqi counterparts did. Moreover, the Iraqis hoped to win that war through attrition using stand up, Soviet-style doctrine. Also do not forget that military planners in the US were expecting 30k-40k casualties for Operation Desert Storm. Why? Because the Iraqis had a massive military (4th largest in the world at the time) that was fully equipped/styled after the Soviets. US success in the war largely came down to better training and better tactics. The technology helped, but it was not the deciding factor. 

Gulf War 2 (OIF): The initial stage of the war went great. Coalition forces made a historic drive to Baghdad that would have made Patton jealous. This is largely due to the Iraqis not learning any lessons from Gulf War 1, and the US learning many lessons from Gulf War 1. However things changed when resistance in Iraq devolved from conventional to unconventional guerrilla warfare. The famed insurgency everyone is always talking about. Why didn't the Coalitions massive technological advantage end this insurgency in a few months? Many, many reasons, but my main point is that just because you are fighting a farmer with an AK and an RPG, does not mean you automatically win if you 'counter' him with a multi-million dollar tank/apc/plane/whatever. 

Zulu: I must admit that I do not know a ton about this subject, but I do know that the Battle of Rourkes Drift (made famous by the movie "Zulu") was won largely to superior training and tactics by the British (specifically organisation and discipline) despite being outnumbered by a massive margin. Take Custers last stand for example. How did a technologically inferior foe defeat a technologically superior enemy? Because the Sioux made up for their technological discrepancies with better tactics.

This is the quick and dirty summary of these events. There is a ton more detail that could be gone into, and as always it is never just one factor that single handedly decides victory or defeat, but its a good general overview to back up my point. Just because you have better tech does not mean you automatically win, or that you have that much of an advantage over a less well equipped adversary. Its all about how you use said tech.  

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Take Custers last stand for example. How did a technologically inferior foe defeat a technologically superior enemy? Because the Sioux made up for their technological discrepancies with better tactics.

The Sioux were not technologically inferior. In fact, they may have had an edge. Some of the Sioux warriors were armed with repeating rifles whereas the cavalry were armed with single shot breech loaders. The Sioux thus armed could sustain a higher rate of fire. But mostly I agree about the tactics. Plus, in this instance the Sioux had numbers on their side, a factor that only grew as the cavalrymen were shot down.

Michael

[John Kettler]

armorgunner,

Wasn't aware of the upgrade program, and I'd never seen any image of the M60T, the drastic rework done by IMI for the Turkish Army. Love the way this tank looks!

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/another-turkish-m60t-sabra-mk-ii-destroyed-near-tall-hawa-village-with-atgm/

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

[IICptMillerII]

59 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

The Sioux were not technologically inferior. In fact, they may have had an edge. Some of the Sioux warriors were armed with repeating rifles whereas the cavalry were armed with single shot breech loaders. The Sioux thus armed could sustain a higher rate of fire. But mostly I agree about the tactics. Plus, in this instance the Sioux had numbers on their side, a factor that only grew as the cavalrymen were shot down.

This is true. What I meant was to say that the US Army at the time had a standardized TO&E whereas the Sioux not as much. The Sioux had a large assortment of different weapons, including modern firearms. Every US rifleman (cavalryman) had a rifle, where as every Sioux warrior had either a rifle, or a bow, or a club, or a few of each, etc. The cavalry lost that fight despite having standardized weapon issuance across their force to the Sioux who used a collection of different weapons. The Sioux won due to better tactics, not because they had better technology. I think we are in agreement, I just wanted to clarify what I meant. 

[Erwin]

I agree with most of your points.  But, re Custer: a) The Indians VASTLY outnumbered Custer's split force.  b)  IIRC Custer's men were not veterans of ACW, but consisted of many conscripts who were additionally exhausted probably due to Custer pushing them too hard to be first in battle so he could get the "glory" vs competing General (Crook?).  Maybe this could be called a strategic error rather than tactics.

FWIW:

"On the morning of this day in 1876, Custer’s scouts told him that a gigantic Indian village lay nearby in the valley of the Little Big Horn River. Custer dismissed the scouts’ claim that the village was extraordinarily large-certainly many thousands of Indians-as exaggerated. Indeed, his main fear was that the Indians would scatter before he could attack. Rather than wait for reinforcements, Custer decided to move forward immediately and stage an unusual mid-day attack. As the 7th Cavalry entered the valley, Custer divided the regiment of about 600 men into four battalions, keeping a force of 215 under his own command."

[JUAN DEAG]

5 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Just because you have better tech does not mean you automatically win, or that you have that much of an advantage over a less well equipped adversary

Battle of Omdurman?

[Machor]

No wish to advertise, but you guys are making me want to try Desperate Glory (at least I'm advertising CMFB as well ):

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/01/the-flare-path-sitting-bull-hovering-hind/#more-357367

" If When things get desperate, a cornered Custer can order his men to slay their own mounts and use them as fleshy breastworks in a desperate immobile last stand."

[IICptMillerII]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I agree with most of your points.  But, re Custer: a) The Indians VASTLY outnumbered Custer's split force.  b)  IIRC Custer's men were not veterans of ACW, but consisted of many conscripts who were additionally exhausted probably due to Custer pushing them too hard to be first in battle so he could get the "glory" vs competing General (Crook?).  Maybe this could be called a strategic error rather than tactics.

Its been said that one of Custers motivations for driving so hard into the Black Hills was because he was searching for mining claims for gold to lay stake on. Regardless, Custer was arrogant. Your second point about tired conscripts helps my point that their technology did not spare them from their lack of experience/adequate training/fatigue. 

19 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Battle of Omdurman?

I'm sorry but I have no knowledge of this battle. A quick Google search shows this as a battle where a technologically superior and better organized/trained British force defeated a much larger force with lesser tech and organization. From my limited reading it sounds like this fits in similarly with the Gulf War 1 model; a highly trained, competent force with better tech annihilates an enemy with many more numbers, but lesser tech and organization. I could be wrong however, as I said I know nothing about the actual battle you mentioned. That said, I am still quite confident in my original point, and there are always exceptions to rules. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by IICptMillerII

[Rinaldi]

34 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Battle of Omdurman?

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.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rinaldi