Padded abrams and leopards. "leopards" in Syria and the problems of German-Turkish relations. …and their opponents
A large translated material, which analyzes the practice of using the German Leopard 2A4TR tanks by the Turkish army in the Syrian war.
A complete analysis of the use of Leopard 2A4TR in Syria.
Introduction.
In this analysis, we are going to take a closer look at the operation of the Turkish Leopard 2A4TR tanks in Syria, so that we know about the vehicle itself, the doctrine and the environment where it operated, and other things, thanks to a very detailed analysis of OSINT. In 2005, Turkey purchased 298 used Leopard 2A4s from Germany, which later became known as Leopard 2A4TRs. The Turkish tanks are only marginally different from the original. Improved air filters have been added, which is very important in a dusty area like Syria.
Operation Euphrates Shield. Syria.
At the end of August 2016, Turkey launched an offensive along with the AFN rebel groups in northern Syria, mainly against the Islamic State, but without taking its eyes off the Kurdish military.
First, the M-60Ts were deployed. For some time (following rumors of Leopard 2s near the Syrian border), on December 8, 2016, the first batch of Leopard 2A4TRs were seen near the city of Al Baba firing their guns at ISIS*.
Composition with Leopard 2A4s near the Turkish-Syrian border.
Theoretically, several armored and mechanized units were deployed on Syrian territory, which apparently numbered no more than two brigades, but to deploy is not the same as to use in the offensive. Since the infantry and FSA technicians usually led the attack, this led to the hybrid military mixture of the Turkish army and FSA.
The first and main language for Syria is Arabic, while the Turks speak Turkish, different alphabets are also used, so communication between the allies was not very good, which is very important if you want to take advantage of the firepower that the tanks and Turkish artillery. Insufficient training and morale among the FSA was also revealed, because this group mainly consisted of men recruited from refugee camps in Turkey with low morale (a fickle morale).
Last but not least, as Russia or the US did in Syria, Turkish troops do not use their conventional units as the main strike force. They remain in reserve and only some support units are sent to the front. This is important because it means they are far from using their full offensive potential on the battlefield.
Let's see what Heinz Guderian, the father of the so-called Blirzkrieg, can tell us about the armored forces from his book Achtung-Panzer! First published in Germany in 1937.
“This force [in relation to armored forces and tanks], which actually has the largest offensive force and has the right to use this force under its own rules, and therefore wherever it is used, it will be the main force, and the rest will depend on them"
A tank is usually the centerpiece of a ground war, but to make full use of its firepower, mobility, and defense, it must have a collateral strength to achieve all the capabilities it offers.
When tanks are poorly escorted and controlled, they become very vulnerable, so ISIS managed to defeat a small Turkish detachment with Leopard 2s and capture its crampons.
If a high-intensity campaign were conducted against ISIS*, then the mechanized or armored forces would consist of the following accompanying elements: mechanized infantry, engineers, self-propelled artillery, air support, all of which would be used simultaneously, in large numbers and at key points of ISIS defense * to break their lines of defense and continue the advance, chasing their rear to Raqqa, but this did not happen,
Why?
Because, as we said, Turkey behaves the same way as Russia or the USA, and they simply do not want an intense and big war with serious losses, so they prefer to use their tanks as a simple support for the FSA, and do not use them in attack, for deep penetration through the lines of ISIS *, along with the combined military forces.
This is the main reason for the loss of Leopard 2A4s in Syria, they are not used as tanks, they are just big mobile guns to support the rebels, for this purpose, a cheap T-55 captured from SAA warehouses would technically be almost as useful as an expensive Leopard 2 .
Using an advanced tank like the Leopard 2A4 to provide fire support at a distance is an obvious underutilization of a very powerful tool.
What else did Heinz Guderian tell us 80 years ago? Let's get a look:
“The claimed rights lead to the following tactical needs:
1. Surprise
2.Mass application
3.Suitable terrain
Surprise was not achieved in Al-Bab, in fact, the opposite was true, Turkish slowness allowed the FSA to shift the load of active battles and the slow advance of the Turkish Armed Forces did not surprise anyone.
Mass use was not achieved, tanks were used in small detachments, usually only platoons of three or four tanks, and sometimes even individually.
Suitable terrain, the only thing that did not depend on the Turkish high command, was given by the very nature of the Syrian terrain with many plains, mountains, deserts and a little snow in winter.
Teacher Guderian said: "The high speed of the armored attack is necessary to determine the results of the battle"
Most of the basic rules for the use of armored forces were not applied by the Turkish military, probably due to political pressure to avoid casualties, and because the head of the operation, Lieutenant General Zekay Aksakalli of the SF, was not very familiar with the use of armored forces.
the Lieutenant general Zekai Aksakallı is from SF
So what was the only way the Turks could use the Leopard 2A4TR in Syria?
Simply come to a position facing the front of the area captured by ISIS *, and give fire support with the help of a liaison officer between the FSA and the tanks or simply with the steel monsters' own capabilities.
The lack of ground reconnaissance and communication with the insurgents eventually led the Leopard 2A4 crews to make bad decisions and place their tanks in vulnerable positions that were monitored by ISIS* and its experienced ATGM-equipped tank hunter units, which eventually were able to knock out MBTs on exposed flanks.
Though we'll take a closer look at protection in the section "Where does a cat have thick fur?" First of all, we want to point out a few things.
Most of the missiles that hit the Leopard 2 were probably 9M113 Konkurs that attacked it from the flanks. Anyone with some knowledge on the subject knows that there is no modern MBT capable of countering these missiles from the sides, if they don't have ERA or hinged armor and/or cage armor. In addition, German designers relied on insulation, most of the most sensitive components, which could lead to a catastrophic explosion in the event of a breakdown, especially with regard to fuel and ammunition.
If a tank such as a Leopard 2A4 is hit in the side by an ATGM, damage is inevitable at the point of impact, but limited due to automatic fire suppression systems, heavily protected ammo boxes, fireproof items, crew clothing, etc. At the moment, we can to say that the Leopard 2A4 resisted these well, terrible consequences, given that heavy damage is inevitable in most cases.
Detailed information about Leopard 2s in Syria.
Prior to being sent to the front, most Leopard 2s were painted with the new desert camouflage scheme, but a few Leopard 2s retained their old green scheme, as we can see in the images.
Green Leopard 2A4s, somewhere in Syria.
Generally speaking, Syria is a dry country, but the north gets snow and very cold temperatures during the coldest months of winter, but this is not a problem for the Leopard 2, which is very well suited to low temperatures.
Syria is not as hot as some might expect.
.
Also the Leopard 2 can be supplied with MG-1 or MG-3 7.62mm machine guns on the turret in front of the commander's hatch, these MGs tend to use the AA scope, but in this case it does not make sense for the Turkish crews and therefore they will probably use conventional scopes. This machine gun is especially famous for its deadly rate of fire of about 1,200 rounds per minute. However, the machine gun on the turret is very rare. We saw only a few tanks with turrets, most of the MGs were removed.
.
MG-1/3 machine gun covered with a plastic cover on the turret.
As for the used ammunition, as far as we were free in inspecting the tanks, we saw M325 HEAT-MP-T (Multipurpose Tracer) rounds along with an advanced Turkish (MKEK) copy of German KE DM-43 or DM-53 rounds and Israeli KFS APFSDS M322 or M328.
KE or APFSDS - Kinetic Energy (only against very well protected targets)
HEAT - High explosive anti-tank (multipurpose)
HE - High explosion (only against lightly armored targets) (high explosive)
shot KFS APFSDS M322
shot M325 HEAT
shot Turkish copy of DM-43s/DM-53
Theoretically, the DM-43 or DM-53 from the last group of images does not exactly match the German-made shot, in our opinion, this is a DM-43 or DM-53 shot made by MKEK, because we found a 120 mm APFSDS -T KE shot made by MKEK, as we can see in the image below, but these shots are not displayed on the MKEK webpage.
Under the M325 we see containers for 120mm APFSDS-T shots made by MKEK, this caliber is for tanks only and the APFSDS type is for Kinnetical Energy (KE) shots only.
The use of HE and HEAT rounds should be the rule in Syria as they are best suited for use against the enemy in field fortifications or behind walls. Also HEAT can even destroy armored vehicles that ISIS* can sometimes deploy, such as BMP-1s or some obsolete tanks.
KE APFSDS are armor-piercing projectiles designed to penetrate the armor of modern T-72 or T-90 type tanks, and they are not effective against buildings, technical equipment or lightly armored vehicles, for example, during the Desert Storm campaign of 1991, we saw that M829 or M829A1 KE shots were able to pierce through both sides of the T-72 and leave the tank without destroying anything. If they can go through the entire vehicle and exit without any consequences, why use them in Syria?
As we all know, ISIS makes extensive use of SVBIEDs (shahid mobile) mounted on armored civilian vehicles moving at high speed, they are quite destructive and difficult to hit targets, HEAT and HE projectiles can hit VBIEDs, but their trajectories are highly parabolic due to for their lower muzzle velocity compared to KE shots which are approximately 1.600 m/s compared to approximately 1.000 m/s HEAT or HE.
This is important for several reasons, for example the DM-53 (KE) is much faster than the M325 (HEAT) and therefore has a much flatter and flatter trajectory resulting in a higher level of accuracy and rate of fire. Both characteristics are very important for fight against VBIED.
But it may be objected that, as I said before, before that, as a rule, they break through the armor and leave the vehicle without causing any significant damage, and this is true,
But we must remember that VBIEDs are loaded with a huge amount of explosives and therefore the probability that a projectile will hit one of them during penetration is very high.
In most world doctrines, including Turkish, tank platoons consist of 4 tanks with one lead tank, however, sometimes some special forces use platoons of three tanks each, for example, this is more common for expeditionary forces such as marines or marine infantry units .
Strangely, at some point, we noticed that, apparently, Turkish tank units use 3 tanks each. Although this is reasonable, because you do not need to use many vehicles to fight ISIS * and you need to be flexible in using the vehicles you have means, but in any case we are not sure about it.
Leopard 2A4TR on the battlefield.
Almost all the fighting in which the Leopard 2 took part was associated with the battle for the city of Al-Bab and, especially, the clashes for the hospital located in the west of the city.
Al Bab. red pointer - hospital.
Evacuation - repair vehicles.
M88 series vehicles are used to repair and replace damaged parts of combat vehicles, evacuate stuck and wrecked vehicles. The main FER vehicle in the Turkish army is the M88A1, originally based on the M-48 / M-60 power plants, the A1 is an improved version with a more powerful engine.
We don't know the number of M88A1s deployed, but we're sure they didn't or couldn't do their job. We could see Leopard 2A4s destroyed or badly damaged. They were not evacuated after being hit, suggesting poor coordination or (possibly) ISIS pressure in the area.
M88A1 in Syria.
So far, we have been able to verify the existence of 43 Leopard 2A4TRs deployed in Syria in two batches: the first of them consisted of 18 tanks that were seen on 8/12/2016, and the second batch included 25 tanks that were sent on 10/12 /2016 these numbers indicate a deployed force equivalent to an armored brigade, and as Christian Triebert wrote in Bellingcat, the license plates of the Leopard 2 corresponded to the 2nd Armored Brigade.
How do they usually work?
They usually fire from hastily built field fortifications, originally intended for infantry and built with earth walls. They are not specifically designed for tanks, since otherwise they would have much higher walls covering their sides and front surfaces. If they had enough time and resources, they would be able to dig out firing positions for the tanks so that they would protect them much more than those walls that were made of soil.
We didn't see a well dug-in firing position for tanks, which indicates low involvement and coordination with engineering units that could have built much better positions, which could have saved many vehicles and crews in the long run.
Look at the images above and simply compare the levels of protection offered by the fortifications made on both firing positions for tanks, the top photo is an M1 Abrams during firing practice, the bottom one is a Leopard 2A4TR in Syria.
Usually Leopard 2s stay behind the dirt walls and provide fire support from the ISIS positions with their main cannons and co-axial machine guns, however we don't know their level of coordination with the FSA.
We also believe that, besides the tank's own capabilities, the Turkish forces use Cobra OTOKAR light wheeled vehicles to support and control the fire of combat units during operations, this method is also used in other armies, for example, French AMX-56s of the VBL type (Véhicule Blindé Léger) are used for the same purpose.
Cobra OTOKAR in Syria.
It is also interesting to note that there are many photographs of Turkish soldiers with relatively rare and specialized weapons, such as the AIAW sniper rifle, such rifles are only used in specialized sniper units, (SFs in particular have this type of weapon,) you usually do not expect to see what they can be used with armored units, it gives us an idea of how hybrid warfare is out there,
where Turkish Leopard 2 operate.
Since the Leopard 2s usually act as a simple fire support vehicle, and not as part of a purely offensive and offensive force, they (probably) do not need to support artillery fire themselves, therefore, artillery and mainly 155mm SPH T-155 do not act in clearing terrain in front of tanks on previously identified targets, this is always a disadvantage.
Under normal conditions, the 155mm SPH T-155 Firtina would have worked in close coordination with the Leopard 2A4s.
However, we are still talking about a low-intensity operation, and therefore deployed tanks do not operate in a normal way. They are used, for example, during urban battles, that is, tank units are dispersed and management is decentralized to a certain extent. So, when tanks are needed in some area , they (the army) don't deploy them even in one division, but only one or two tanks to provide fire support, this is due to the fact that there are so few deployed troops in ISIS* that you don't need the whole squad to participate in the fire support phase .
Under normal conditions, Turkish tank units will coordinate their actions with aircraft, helicopters, artillery and other means. In Syria, they coordinate with small units of mechanized infantry mounted on ACV-15s (a heavily improved Turkish version of the M-113 APC), which, in our opinion, usually act as security and protection elements for small tanks.
In most cases, the true driving force of the ECO (Joint Expeditionary Force) is the FSA units supported by tanks and artillery (provided by the SF) to support the FSA and use the recognition technique. The air force appears to operate both on pre-determined targets and in providing close air support.
But the main problem is that the FSA, which is theoretically considered the head infantry, has a different language (Arabic), they have no experience, low morale and low training, and finally, they are mostly light infantry. Without their own heavy weapons, which, after all, and despite the support of Turkish heavy weapons, does not compensate for their shortcomings.
In addition, the high professionalism of the ISIS* tank hunter units in Al Bab cannot be underestimated.
This "surprise" for TA has never been seen before in Syria or Iraq.
Simultaneous double ATGM strikes and good coordination to attack from different directions, as well as good knowledge that allowed them to take advantage of some of the advantages and make small but successful attacks.
"Where does a cat have the thickest fur"?
While some argue that the tanks were hit by TOW-2A ATGMs, we consider this unlikely, primarily because only a few TOWs ended up in the hands of ISIS* throughout the war, and secondly because ISIS* there are many Soviet/Russian ATGMs. Some of them were captured and others were bought by rebel groups.
These ATGMs are mainly 9M111 Fagot, 9M113 Konkurs, 9M133 Kornet and 9M115 Metis, the latter, depending on the 9M115 or 9M115-1 variant, has an average range of 1 to 1.5 km, they also all work with HEAT warheads and the less powerful one is 9M111 with penetration capability of about 400 mm RHA.
Theoretically, the frontal armor of the "Leopard-2A4" would have resisted the "Bassoons", could withstand the "Metis" and "Competition" and would not have resisted the "Cornet".
*So in the text: "In theory the frontal armor of the Leopard 2A4 would resist the Fagot, could resist the Metis and the Konkurs and would not resist the Kornet."
However, the sides are a different story, If, on the front of the Leopard 2A4 sides on the sides where the heavy skirts are located (sideskirts), we could talk about 40% armor in the front, while other parts on the sides would probably have even less.
See how thin the side armor is.
We estimate that the chassis armor will be between 3cm and 8cm thick of regular steel depending on where and what place we are talking about, while at the bottom of the chassis we should add wheels and a light skirt acting as spaced armor, which adds known protection. But still, the most exposed parts are the sides of the tower and the high part of the chassis, because. there is no additional armor on both sides.
To the left of the soldier we can appreciate the heavy sideskirts of the first generation, which were later replaced in the Leopard 2A5 version.
However, measures have been developed in the Leopard 2s to protect the critical flammable or explosive components inside the tank, as well as the ammunition in general, which is protected, and even each shot has its own clad container. The tank has two main ammunition racks, the first with 27 rounds, located at the front of the chassis at shooter height, which is very well protected, but it can be vulnerable to mines that fall on low glacis or under the hull. Another rack is located on the left side of the turret and has 15 rounds , are definitely more vulnerable, especially to hits on the sides of the turret.
Ammunition storage on a Leopard 2A4
Needless to say, every ATGM could penetrate the side of the Leopard almost anywhere, and after penetration, only protective measures and luck, somehow provided by the designers, will allow the tank and its crew to survive. It should also be said that usually only one penetration is not capable of destroying a tank, but rather inflicting heavy, but recoverable damage on it. Also severe wounds and even deaths for the crew.
In the case of Syria, all recorded penetrations were on the right side of the Leopard 2, which leads to one of the worst situations. Also, some tanks were captured and completely destroyed by ISIS or Turkish air strikes.
Let's look at the image below, it shows a completely destroyed Leopard 2A4. It is completely destroyed, but let's take a closer look at the front of the chassis, because this part is the one that suffered the most. For example, the turret combat post was also damaged, but this did not mean that the turret was broken into pieces, but the chassis was. In our opinion, this evidence suggests that such damage can be caused by a missile from an aircraft, in the case of the Turkish Air Force, it was probably a Maverick AGM-65. Because the frontal landing gear is very difficult to destroy, and as we see in this case it is destroyed.
The damage to the front of the chassis is incredibly high, considering that this is the most armored part of the MBT.
There is also an ISIS* video of several Leopard 2s captured in Turkish positions, apparently all of them were well preserved, and therefore photos could have been taken from all sides of the Leopard 2. After that, the captured tanks were destroyed by ISIS* or Turkish troops. After all, these are too sophisticated and unknown vehicles for ISIS*, and they are as useless as those M1 Abrams captured in Iraq, which were subsequently destroyed.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to establish a link between any ISIS videos of the ATGM attacks and other tank photos, with the exception of the next group of images where we can see two Leopard 2A4s being attacked, thanks to Christian Triebert for help.
In this case, (ATGM on the tank) probably Soviet 9M111, 9M113 or 9M133 were used.
Two Leopard 2s and one T-155 SPH were attacked in a ground-protected position. The defense consisted of a dirt wall divided into two spaces in front, where both vehicles were positioned for firing (from the side where the attack was expected) and a wall that did not cover the higher part of the chassis.
You can see the post-hit effects in this image.
The second tank that was hit: Here we can evaluate the penetration effects.
The first tank hit: in this case, we can see a hole in the turret, the energy of the explosion has risen up in the area penetration 120 mm ammunition.
While both tanks were brutally impacted, the second one burned out completely, judging by the angle for the ATGM, we can clearly see that the most exposed part of this tank was the rear of the turret, where ready-to-use 120mm shells were placed. catastrophic consequences (explosion of shots) which probably led to the death of some crew members.
The first tank resisted the impact much better, because (as we can see in the image) the turrets and tank chassis were badly damaged, the rocket pierced the heavy sideskirts on the chassis, which may have helped to reduce the power of the anti-tank charge. It hit inside the tank, there may have been internal damage to the tank and injuries to the crew, but the crew was still able to turn the turret back. Although this blow was close to blowing up the main storage in the 120 mm rack, it seems to have been lucky. Which shows why the German designers added those heavy sideskirts on the flanks to protect the side where a hard hit could eventually reach the main 120mm round storage.
It is also interesting to note that in the image above we can see that the upper part of the turret is exposed where the 120mm rounds are located, theoretically this part of the tank was designed by engineers to direct the explosion of the shells outside the tank, so it is very typical to see this part of the turret Leopard 2 inside out in cases of penetration.
In the successive images of ATGM 1 and ATGM 1.2 we can see the impact of a charge (ATGM) of a medium range type 9M115-2 Metis-M with a high ability to penetrate the side of the Leopard 2, again we see a very weak point in the tank, from a powerful charge such as Metis-M .
The best frontal armor on the Leopard 2A4s is not an advantage over the T-72 in similar strikes.
T-72s have about 80mm of steel on the sides, probably almost the same as the Leopard 2.
We also noticed that catastrophic kills in German tanks are rare.
Some tanks were destroyed by IEDs or mines, the fact is that, as a rule, anti-personnel mines are designed to stop a tank by destroying tracks, but not to completely destroy them, however improvised explosive devices, which are "home-made" and can be produced in various quantities explosives can be very powerful, especially if conventional 152mm or 155mm artillery rounds are used.
In the next image, we see a completely destroyed tank, the license plate of which was "195 / 526" and according to some reports, it was blown up by an IED or a mine.
If we take a close look at a table from an unknown source, which turned out to be very accurate, the tanks that suffered heavy damage had the note "Ağır hasarli" (heavy damage), while those that had very light damage did not have any indication. Let's take this table and compare it with the tanks in the videos released by ISIS*.
Tank "195 | 526" appeared in the list "as without any serious damage", which in theory says it was affected by an IED or a mine.
So why are the images showing exactly the opposite?
In our opinion, this is part of ISIS propaganda. The turret does not appear to have been damaged by the explosion of its 120mm ammunition, but rather suffered a huge explosion after the ammunition was removed. Which explains the absence of burning traces from the explosion and if the terrorists would have placed explosives under the bottom of the tank in the area of \u200b\u200bthe main storage of shots. After all, it is very likely that this tank took damage from a mine, and ISIS was able to rob and then plant explosives and blow it up so that the Turkish troops could not restore the Leopard.
For example, the Leopard 2, which is in the photo below, looks like it ran into an AT mine or IED, because the right track is destroyed, and the other one is in good condition. Also, the explosion did not cause the destruction of the tank, since it (the explosion) could not to get to the main racks of shells, this matches the description given for tank number 195 / 541.
Also the next tank (pictured below) looks like number 195 / 537. Because the description said it was "under the wall".
It is claimed on social media that the tank was loaded with bombs and a shot from Barrett's M82A1 caused it to collapse.
Interestingly, almost 100% of mine explosions, hits from RPGs and ATGMs in the Leopard 2 occurred on the right side of the tanks, this is due to the fact that the positions of ISIS * were in Al-Bab, and Turkish tanks were approaching from the west.
Approximately two kilometers to the south, ISIS positions were placed within range of long-range ATGMs at a range of 2 kilometers from FSA-Turkish-held territory. "Tank hunters" could strike Leopard-2s that were targeting Al -Baba, opening his lateral right sides to defeat the anti-tank systems.
the following image explains it
Better co-ordination with the FSA or even mixing them with TA mechanized units will increase the level of effectiveness on the battlefield and also help strengthen the FSA forces.
Increase the level of coordination with engineers to conduct recovery missions and create more protected firing positions for tanks, which could help prevent Turkish AT ISIS* tanks from being detected and attacked. At the same time, Leopard 2s should use their mobility more effectively and not stay in one place after several shots, it is important to speed up fire support processes in order to reduce the detection, attack and fire of ISIS * AT against Turkish armored vehicles.
Repair and evacuation activities are very important because some of the tanks captured by ISIS* were taken because they had minor mobility issues that could be resolved by repairing them or evacuating them from the front before ISIS* could take that position , as well as some destroyed tanks, which should also be taken out of the battlefield, were left and remained in the same places even a month after they were destroyed.
Organization of self-destructive ( self destruction) air units 24/7 ready to destroy enemy tanks captured by ISIS*, it might be a good idea to prevent them from using these tanks as propaganda or giving us nasty surprises in the future.
In addition, ISIS* infantry operations capable of taking up small positions that housed Leopard 2A4TRs demonstrate some uncertainty about the security element of the mechanized infantry in the ACV-15. Which was to establish a strong perimeter around the tanks to prevent infiltration and ISIS * attacks that occur in hybrid warfare.
In addition, to allocate more M88A1 recovery vehicles to units at the front to provide them with more effective means for recovery operations of the armored units of the rapid reaction forces needed for counterattacks, supported by helicopters, against possible raids by ISIS * or similar.
All of the above measures are very cheap, however, some technologies can be used to directly protect the Leopard 2 as we see them.
The Turkish company ASELSAN has designed a very interesting prototype based on the Leopard 2A4 called the Leopard 2 NG (Next Generation) which by the way adds a lot of modular armor and lattice armor on the sides.
While the Leopard 2A4 is probably adequately protected against most frontal threats, the sides are a different story and in our opinion the addition of Leopard 2 NG armor on the sides and some ERA could make them well protected against ISIS* threats, however unlikely so that without ERA even Leopard 2 NG can stop Konkurs or even Kornet from the flanks. Along with these measures, the development of new, better protected ammunition racks, even if slightly reduced, can be a great idea. Finally adding an LWR or similar system to alert the team to attacks by enemy ATGMs could help save a lot of tanks and lives.
translation from English
Last week, one of the most famous German weekly publications, Stern, published an article by Gernot Kramper, a well-known journalist and military observer in Germany, dedicated to the combat debut of the Leopard 2 tanks. In his article, Kramper calls the results of the first serious battle of the best European tank nothing but a disaster ....
The reason for such harsh criticism was the destruction of two Leopard-2A4 tanks of the Turkish army at once on the outskirts of the Syrian city of Al-Bab. Kramper notes that ISIS militants withdrew three tanks in just two days. At the same time, two tanks, according to the observer, were completely destroyed along with the crews, while the third one cannot be restored, but the crew escaped with severe wounds and burns.
According to the journalist, Leopard-2 has already been in the war zone before. So, as part of the Canadian troops, a more modern model of a German car visited Afghanistan, but things did not go beyond a few minor skirmishes with the Taliban. It is worth noting that even then German tanks received an unsatisfactory assessment from military experts. The reason was a case of hitting a mine, when one of the crew members was injured. The military noted that the explosions of the Israeli Merkava tank, the traditional competitor of the Leopard, and more powerful mines and land mines caused much less harm to equipment and crew.
Under Al-Bab, everything happened much more tragically. Kramper believes that the destruction of the Leopard Model 2A4 by the TOW2 anti-tank missile system is quite predictable, since this model does not have any effective means of protection against such weapons. However, this was only the first case of an attack on a tank, and it was then that the crew managed to survive. In two other cases, the pride of German tank building was fatally attacked by obsolete Soviet Fagot ATGMs ....
The same Turkish Leopards in Syria
A German journalist notes with horror that the 2A4 modification began to be produced in the mid-80s of the last century, but it is destroyed by missiles at least 15 years older. That is, even then Germany, the country with the best military-industrial complex in Europe, was inferior to older Soviet weapons. “Now the Leopards of this modification, purchased by many countries of the world, including European ones, are being destroyed by primitive wire-guided missiles!” Kramper laments. At the end of the article, the military observer clarifies that this modification is considered obsolete in the German army and is not used, which means that in the event of a possible conflict with Russia, one can hope that German tanks will not be helpless lambs ...
At the same time, in neighboring Syria, the Russian T-90 tank of the government army easily withstood a hit from the PTRS ....
As the main reason for the defeat of the tanks of the NATO countries, Kramper calls the low training of tankers from the Middle Eastern countries. He directly states that the level of training of Turkish tankers is much lower than that of militant armor-piercers. However, this does not negate the fact that in similar situations, Russian technology allows crews to make mistakes without a critical risk to life.
P.S. In Syria, over a dozen skins have already been removed from these Leopards in a couple of days.
And in what climate and on what soil should this 75-ton Wunderwaffe be used? On Russian black soil and Belarusian forests? Autobahn only. What is its cost and how many hours it takes to make it? Under it, you need miracle railway platforms for transfer, miracle bridges, miracle repairmen, miracle dirt and many more miracles unknown to us. Either they carry a Dora or Bertha cannon in several echelons, or they mold a Maus in 170 tons for the factory yard. The eastern hike in 1941 did not teach the Germans anything.
Last week, one of the most famous German weekly publications, Stern, published an article by Gernot Kramper, a well-known journalist and military observer in Germany, dedicated to the combat debut of the Leopard 2 tanks. In his article, Kramper calls the results of the first serious battle of the best European tank nothing but a disaster ....
The reason for such harsh criticism was the destruction of two Leopard-2A4 tanks of the Turkish army at once on the outskirts of the Syrian city of Al-Bab. Kramper notes that ISIS militants took out three tanks in just two days. At the same time, two tanks, according to the observer, were completely destroyed along with the crews, while the third one cannot be restored, but the crew escaped with severe wounds and burns.
Leopard captured by terrorists in Syria
According to the journalist, Leopard-2 has already been in the war zone before. So, as part of the Canadian troops, a more modern model of a German car visited Afghanistan, but things did not go beyond a few minor skirmishes with the Taliban. It is worth noting that even then German tanks received an unsatisfactory assessment from military experts. The reason was a case of hitting a mine, when one of the crew members was injured. The military noted that the explosions of the Israeli Merkava tank, the traditional competitor of the Leopard, and more powerful mines and land mines caused much less harm to equipment and crew.
Under Al-Bab, everything happened much more tragically. Kramper believes that the destruction of the Leopard Model 2A4 by the TOW2 anti-tank missile system is quite predictable, since this model does not have any effective means of protection against such weapons. However, this was only the first case of an attack on a tank, and it was then that the crew managed to survive. In two other cases, the pride of German tank building was attacked by Soviet Fagot ATGMs ....
The same Turkish Leopards in Syria
The German journalist notes with horror that the 2A4 modification began to be produced in the mid-80s of the last century, but it is destroyed by missiles at least 15 years older. That is, even then Germany, the country with the best military-industrial complex in Europe, was inferior to older Soviet weapons. “Now the Leopards of this modification, purchased by many countries of the world, including European ones, are being destroyed by primitive wire-guided missiles!” Kramper laments. At the end of the article, the military observer clarifies that this modification is considered obsolete in the German army and is not used, which means that in the event of a possible conflict with Russia, one can hope that German tanks will not be helpless lambs .... 
At the same time, in neighboring Syria, the Russian T-90 tank of the government army easily withstood a hit from an anti-tank rifle ....
As the main reason for the defeat of the tanks of the NATO countries, Kramper calls the low training of tankers from the Middle Eastern countries. He bluntly states that the level of training of Turkish tankers is much lower than that of combat armor-piercers. However, this does not negate the fact that in similar situations, Russian technology allows crews to make mistakes without a critical risk to life. Anchor
P.S. In Syria, over a dozen skins have already been removed from these Leopards in a couple of days.
And in what climate and on what soil should this 75-ton Wunderwaffe be used? On Russian black soil and Belarusian forests? Autobahn only. What is its cost and how many hours it takes to make it? Under it, you need miracle railway platforms for transfer, miracle bridges, miracle repairmen, miracle dirt and many more miracles unknown to us. Either they carry a Dora or Bertha cannon in several echelons, or they mold a Maus in 170 tons for the factory yard. The eastern hike in 1941 did not teach the Germans anything.
fav
German-made "cats" again suffered losses in Syria - Kurds
knocked out the tank "Leopard" from the Soviet ATGM "Fagot". Is the quality of German weapons being over-praised, or is excessive self-confidence and not very skilled users leading to such a result? We're trying to figure out the situation.
We made speeches
For most of 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to openly blackmail the European Union by promising to open the border to the flow of refugees. Such statements could not but arouse suspicion, and after the infamous Turkish putsch in July 2016, the situation escalated so much that a number of EU countries interrupted or suspended military-technical cooperation with Turkey, including Germany.
Quarreling with the EU (and especially with Germany, a longtime military-technical partner) was definitely not worth it. Erdogan faced the consequences.
Firstly, it is known that Turkey has unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with the Germans and conclude a contract for the modernization of existing Leopard 2 tanks since at least March 2017. The Turkish side can only admire the proposals for improving the booking from the German concerns KMW and Rheinmetall in the brochures.
Turkish "Leopards" on the border with Syria
Secondly, an ambitious project - a promising Turkish tank Altay - was under threat. It suddenly turned out that there is much more German in it than “national”, so it will not work to re-equip the army with new generation vehicles either “right now” or in the foreseeable future.
As a result, Turkey was faced with the need to fight with what is available. As long as EU “weapons” sanctions are in effect, the new car cannot be completed, and the existing ones cannot be improved to an acceptable state.
"Seals" of retirement age
In 2005, Turkey purchased 298 used Leopard 2A4s, which were later named Leopard 2A4TR. Differences from the "original" A-fours were minimal and did not concern booking.
I must say that the Leopard 2A4 vehicles were produced from 1985 to 1992 in three batches, with each subsequent batch receiving more powerful armor. In addition, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, almost all Leopard 2 of the first series (A0 - A3), built from 1979 to 1985, were rebuilt in this variant. Judging by open data, the fleet of Turkish "Leopards" just consists of vehicles built in the early 1980s, which were supposed to deter the Soviet T-64, T-72 and T-80 in battles in Western Europe. Turkish tanks never had dynamic protection, let alone active defense systems, which clearly did not contribute to their survivability.
The human factor of the Turkish side
The lack of modern technology is far from the main problem of the Turkish army. Most likely, the “local” features of the conduct of hostilities were influenced by the “purges” of the army after the unsuccessful coup in July 2016.
On the videos regularly appearing on the Internet, it is clearly seen that the Turkish military is using tanks in a completely different way than prescribed.
The Kurds do not have heavy equipment, so the tanks of the Turks serve as mobile fortified points or analogues of assault guns ... however, in a rather peculiar way.
There is no infantry support, the presence of reconnaissance is also doubtful, the vehicles roll carelessly one or two or stand, exposing vulnerabilities to ATGM gunners. Firing positions for tanks are not always equipped, and if they are equipped, then hastily and are unlikely to be able to protect from something.
Ammunition racks of the Leopards are most likely filled with cumulative (HEAT) and high-explosive fragmentation (HE) shells. This is probably why the video shows such a powerful explosion.
Another significant factor that reduces the survivability of the second "Leopard" in these conditions is the peculiarity of the location of the ammunition inside the tank - 22 of the 42 projectiles are located in a rack in the front of the hull, to the left of the driver. From the side of the forehead, they are covered quite well, but when they hit the side, and even more so the roof of the hull - which is quite likely in the mountains - this scheme has problems.
…and their opponents
Opponents, however, are not far behind in oddities. Judging by the data published by the Turkish side, with the help of anti-tank systems, the Kurds are more likely to attack bulldozers and fortifications than tanks or armored vehicles. This, of course, is uplifting and good for propaganda, but it is unlikely to deter the Turks much.
In addition, unsuccessful attacks, at least, are not published, and in the most unsuccessful scenario, little is left of the operators.
Since Turkey has more resources, at a similar pace, the Kurds will run out of either anti-tank systems or calculations.
Is Leopard bad?
Tanks Leopard 2 are in service with 18 countries, including Germany. They are planned to be delivered to four more states. Of course, one can argue on the topic “Leopards messed themselves up”, but, obviously, no tank would shine in similar conditions. There is reason to believe that the Turkish military would have ruined both the more modern modification of the Leopard, and the T-90, and even the T-14 Armata.
In the end, there are cases when Middle Eastern tankers abandoned completely serviceable equipment that went to the militants.
It is worth recalling the case of the T-90, which in combat conditions moved with open hatches and the Shtora optoelectronic suppression system turned off. The result - a TOW-2A ATGM hit, the Syrian crew was saved by dynamic protection.
Another thing is clear: no matter who wins the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, the German concerns KMW and Rheinmetall will eventually win. Both current and future users of the Leopards will be clearly shown what happens to those who do not invest in time to improve their tank fleet.
Modernization, I must say, is not cheap. In January 2017, the Turkish Ministry of Defense was ready to spend $500 million to "upgrade" 200 tanks (part of the Leopard 2A4, part of the M60), which gives a rough figure of $2.5 million per combat vehicle.
Agree - a very good profit from someone else's stupidity.
Armored troops armed with American Abrams tanks are being carried in Iraq. ISIS fighters * destroy them en masse with the help of both American and Russian anti-tank missile systems. Now it became known that the German Leopard-2 tank did not pass the strength test in real combat conditions. According to various sources, there are already from five to ten Leopards in battles.
This tank is considered the pride of Germany. Since 1977, more than 3,000 Leopard-2 main battle tanks of various modifications have been produced. In Syria, the Leopard-2A4 tanks are fighting as part of the Turkish army, standing approximately in the middle of the scale of combat capabilities of various modifications. In addition to the armies of Germany and Turkey, the armored divisions of another 20 countries are armed with this tank. The largest purchases were made by Austria, Turkey, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Greece.
From the point of view of theory, the German tank should have been more protected against missile attacks than the American Abrams. Since its modification 2A4, which appeared in the late 80s, was maximally protected from any type of attack. The armor protection was sharply increased, due to which the mass of the tank increased from 50 to 55 tons. Additional measures have been introduced to improve the survival of the crew. Also increased the firepower of the machine.
Yes, the Leopard 2 is a solid tank. It could not be otherwise, because Germany has had its own school of tank building for several decades. It is represented by the engineering company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co KG, headquartered in Munich. The company began with the design and production of the Leopard 1 tank, which from 1965 to 1980 was the main battle tank of the Bundeswehr.
After the possibilities of upgrading the Leopard-1 were exhausted, Krauss-Maffei created a new main battle tank. Which became significantly more expensive, in connection with which the serial production of Leopard-2 was reduced to 3000 against 6000 for Leopard-1.
Of course, the combat capabilities of the new machine have increased significantly. So, instead of a rifled gun of 105 mm caliber, a smooth-bore gun of the Rheinmetall company of 120 mm caliber began to be used. Armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles of increased power appeared in the line of ammunition.
However, the gun, which has a good range and accuracy, is devoid of an automatic loader. And this is now almost an atavism, because the lack of a machine gun almost directly affects the combat capabilities of the tank. Firstly, the rate of fire of the gun is reduced, since the loader has to make many repetitive movements of the same type. Secondly, the accumulating fatigue of the loader can also lead to errors during firing or when performing any actions that affect the success of the tank on the battlefield. Thirdly, in the absence of an automatic gun loader, part of the ammunition load is located in close proximity to the loader. And this is fraught with tragic consequences in the event of a detonation or fire.
We will try to take a closer look at the security of the tank. It would seem that German designers, armed with considerable experience in creating previous modifications of the tank and testing it both in range and combat conditions, should have made a low-vulnerability vehicle. In addition, they did not particularly consider the costs of development and mass production. As a result, Leopard-2 is sold both on the domestic German market and on the foreign market for 6.5 million dollars. Approximately the same cost characteristics and the main battle tanks of the top five - British, Israeli, American, French ... As for the Russian T-90A tank, it costs only 2.5 million. production. This is one of the reasons why Russian manufacturers are the undisputed leaders in the global tank market.
It would seem that the Leopard-2A4 armor protection was designed at the highest engineering and technical level. The share of armor accounts for 52% of the total mass of the tank, which is 29 tons. In addition, modern multilayer armor is used, which can significantly weaken the effect of enemy ammunition.
To reduce the angle of collision of the projectile with the armor, the upper front plate of the hull has a large angle of inclination. The thickness of the frontal armor of the tower was increased to 700 mm. Since the previous modifications had weak mine protection, the armor thickness of the bottom of the tank was increased to 30-70 mm. They made sure that the enemy shell that pierced the armor caused the crew and the tank the least possible harm. To do this, the internal surfaces of the fighting compartment of the tank were covered with synthetic mats made of high-strength armid fiber. When interacting with the mats, fragments that have pierced the armor reduce their energy and the cone angle of expansion.
In theory, such a tank should have high survivability. But this is true only in relation to the time of its creation, i.e. 80s. Since then, both anti-tank weapons and the tactics of tank battles have changed. The Americans were already burned on this when in Iraq in the middle of the “zero” “Abrams” were destroyed in large quantities by Iraqi partisans. Moreover, they did not use sub-caliber shells with a depleted uranium core, but primitive home-made mines and old RPG-7 grenade launchers. In just over a year, 80 Abrams were destroyed. The American designers, having analyzed the causes of the losses, carried out the modernization of the tank, adapting it as much as possible to urban battles. One of the most important design decisions was the strengthening of the dynamic protection of the armor in various directions.
Until recently, the fried rooster did not peck at the designers of Leopard-2. These tanks at the beginning of the century took part in the military operation in Afghanistan. There were complaints about their quality, but complaints of a "peaceful nature", since the Leopards then practically did not participate in the battles. And their vulnerability to shelling with not the most modern ammunition could not be determined. And now, when the tank was finally tested in a real case - a scandal. ISIS insist that they destroyed 10 "Leopards" belonging to Turkey.
According to German data, the losses amounted to 5 tanks. Turkish crews simply abandoned 2 wrecked tanks, and they went to ISIS militants as trophies. One tank was seriously damaged by a missile from the American TOW-2 anti-tank complex, the crew escaped. 2 tanks were destroyed by the Fagot Soviet anti-tank missile, the crews were killed.
What can be said offhand? Still, the armor protection of the Leopard-2A4 does not fully meet the requirements of our time. The tank does not have dynamic armor protection, which is cells hung on the armor, playing the role of a kind of explosives. When a projectile comes into contact with a cell, it is detonated, which leads to the neutralization of enemy ammunition. 700 mm of frontal armor is not enough these days. Now many tanks have increased their frontal armor up to a meter.
As before, the Leopard has poor bottom armor, in connection with which the tank may become a victim of handicraft mines.
The tank, hit by an American TOW-2 anti-tank missile, was absolutely powerless in front of her. Because a missile with a tandem HEAT warhead is capable of penetrating 800 mm of armor. The Leopard, as we remember, has a frontal armor thickness of 700 mm.
The destruction of two Leopard-2s by a wire-guided Soviet Fagot anti-tank missile of the 1970s is a more serious blow to the tank's reputation. The fact is that the Fagot has a smaller warhead (2.5 kg versus 6 kg for the TOW-2), and armor penetration is 600 mm.
A somewhat different situation was at the moment when the T-90A tank of the Syrian army was hit by the same American TOW-2 missile. Data on the armor of this tank is still classified. But it is known that composite armor is widely used in it, including layers with materials with unique properties. It is also known that the T-90A has dynamic armor protection, which significantly increases the survivability of the tank. In addition, there is the Shtora active protection complex, which counteracts the shelling of high-precision weapons.
Under normal operating conditions, nothing happens to a Russian tank in Syria. There are cases when up to 4 hits of armor-piercing ammunition had practically no effect on the performance of the tank. But in one case, the tank was lost - that is, captured by militants. And this was predetermined by the fact that the tank was used tactically absolutely illiterately. No infantry support. The tank was used alone, and not as part of a platoon. No one recorded the moment the ATGM was fired. The tank stood still and did not maneuver. The Shtora complex was turned off. Open hatches on the tower. It was through the hatch that the shock wave entered the tank, which was formed during the explosion of a 6-kilogram anti-tank missile warhead. In this connection, the shell-shocked gunner jumped out of the tank in a stressed state. As a result, the tank passed into the hands of the terrorists.
* The Islamic State movement was recognized as a terrorist organization by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014, its activities in Russia are prohibited.