TankHunter Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Turkish equipment losses/damage, translated from a Turkish report. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 11 hours ago, Grenny said: Hit the nail on the head here.(Same thing happend to several IED jammers who could als neutralize(=pre-trigger) wire operated IEDs). Had a lengthy discussusion with jurists involved.  Jr.:"The APS round could detonate and harm civilians near by" Me.:"But if they're that close to the vehicle, they will be hurt by RPG round anyway+ our own people get killed." Jr.:" Yes, but that is not a problem." Me saying.:"Why?" (thinking: "WTF!!!") Jr.: "Because then the Bw will not be responsible for the deaths/injury." ...I was out of words by that moment.   So its OK for you guys to die (Having signed a disclaimer absolving the FRG/BDW of all responsibility (Considering they put you in this situation) ) but god forbid some local halfwit (Accepted, a wide generalisation, but most people have enough common sense to hide when shooting starts in earnest)  who thinks wandering around near a 60 ton killing machine in a firefight is a good idea. Dammit the guy probably doesn't even know the meaning of litigation.  That's the problem with today..... Everyone in charge is worried about either A being sued B balancing a budget C not giving a f**k anymore. D hell bent on deliberately misplacing their god given common f**king sense.  I guess C & D are interchangeable.  I just want to go live in a hole until this all blows over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Quote Situation Unknown (probably captured by ISIS) Â Gotta love the accountability there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: Â Gotta love the accountability there! Â Yep, well its not like you'd admit that you'd sold it or kept it as a private RV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 (edited) hmmm Edited December 24, 2016 by lavictoireestlavie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 How do you loose a tank? Â If ISIS is going to capture my Leo2A4, before they do it I'm going to dump some flammable liquid inside, scatter a few rounds of 120mm ammo around (IF I HAVE ANY LEFT...) and light that b***h up before I leave it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Or use the Thermite grenade supplied for just such an eventuality (after you scramble the radios of course and probably throw away the bolts for the MGs). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Or use the Thermite grenade supplied for just such an eventuality I suppose that would go into the breech of the gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said: I suppose that would go into the breech of the gun?  Depends on what you're trying to do.  Personally I'd try to burn the whole vehicle, get it to pop the turret if I could. Totally wreck it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iarmor Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 (edited) Were there any ATGM hits on Leopards in Afghanistan? I don't remember ever reading about ATGM use in Afghanistan against NATO nor against the Soviets. I wonder why the locals didn't get a significant supply of TOWs in addition to the Stingers during the 80's. Edited December 25, 2016 by Iarmor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koen Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 On 23-12-2016 at 9:13 AM, Ssnake said: I think the main difference is that in Syria the parties (whatever label you may give them - freedom fighters, rebels, terrorists, islamofascists) have access to (relatively modern) ATGMs in quantity, something that the Taliban do not. Also, at least the Danes sent Leo 2A5 with better hull armor (and a few other modifications to increase survivability); they still lost at least one tank to an IED (don't know if it was a total write-off, but most certainly a case for depot level repairs).  That said, ATGM losses can usually be attributed to a lack of situational awareness, at least to some degree. Putting tanks into static overwatch positions is another invitation to the other party to bring missiles. Also, it seems from the footage that I saw that the ATGMs in use are all pretty long range. A concealed position at 3km distance, a low launch signature, suitable positioning (sun glare), and heat blur apparently offer enough tactical advantage. Tanks need mobility for their survival. Keep them long enough in the same place, and you'll lose them.  Same pov here:  "More important than the technology used on a tank might be the tactics on how the tank is being used. The Turkish Leopard 2 tanks seem to be poorly employed, sitting always behind heaps of ground in a hull-down position. While a hull-down position is favourable in certain situations - such as symmetric warfare when the direction from which the enemy will approach is known - it is not a good idea for the tanks to remain in a static position without proper protection, when they can be attacked from the side and rear aswell. In the incident where two tanks were hit, the crew of the second tank was apparently not reacting at all - they simply ignored that the other Leopard 2 has been hit by an ATGM some time ago, the crew apparetnly didn't care about taking out the enemy ATGM team.  When using tanks in a static emplacement just for fire support, one should expect them to be used in a secured perimeter. If the tanks are not capable of securing the area by themselves, then infantry or other combat vehicles should take over the task. Surveillance and reconnaisance vehicles with thermal imagers should have no issues detecting enemy ATGM teams and infantry even at long distances. The Turkish Army doesn't seem to employ the tanks as part of a combined arms doctrine - tanks are always seen operating alone and not together with (mechanized or motorized) infantry. Instead the Leopard 2 tanks seem to play sitting ducks and serve as more expensive artillery replacement... a cheap 120 mm mortar carrier vehicle would probably be better suited for this job."  https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2016/12/leopard-2-in-syria.html?m=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 9, 2017 Members Share Posted January 9, 2017 11 hours ago, Koen said: When using tanks in a static emplacement just for fire support, one should expect them to be used in a secured perimeter. If the tanks are not capable of securing the area by themselves, then infantry or other combat vehicles should take over the task. Surveillance and reconnaisance vehicles with thermal imagers should have no issues detecting enemy ATGM teams and infantry even at long distances.  "The same POV"? Hardly so: "Should" being the operative word in every sentence above.  With missiles that have a range of at least 3km each tank needs a "secured perimeter" in excess of 28km². The amount of infantry and "other combat vehicles" necessary to secure such a large area... well, if they had so many soldiers available, I guess the world would call it a "massive invasion by Turkey". So, I think we can discard that "option" from a variety of angles. Picking a missile team at 3km range with thermal imagers in broad daylight - I seriously doubt that the author has ever sat behind a thermal imager for real. With 1st generation TIS you can barely make out a "blob" at 3km range when it's a tank, and properly identify it only at 1500m and shorter ranges; IOW, IDing a missile team at ranges above 500m is wishful thinking. Even worse, in broad daylight the sun will heat up everything, so the thermal image doesn't even help you with a hot spot that sticks out, let alone one behind cover or in a concealed position. And we haven't even touched the subject of field of view. A thermal imager in high magnification offers 5° FoV. The ones that you can use to ID a missile team at 3000m range would need to zoom in twice more, so 1.25° FoV. So, wherever you look, there's 358.75° that you DON'T see.  No. No. No.  The issue is that the tanks are being ordered into static positions, denying the only option that crews and tactical commanders have at their disposal for survivability. With missiles that have a range that is equal or in excess of what the tanks deliver in terms of accuracy and sensor range, you simply can't afford to hang around, period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK-DDAM Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 regarding the danes in afghanistan we had 1 where we lost a driver to an ied strike where the emergency hatch blew up into the driver, that was when we decided that underbelly armour was neccessery, but weve had loads of ied strikes on leopards there but most went back out after been repaired.. know we had a couple of chassis standing in bastion but think mainly they were there for spareparts.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 9, 2017 Members Share Posted January 9, 2017 ...but of course, the difference is that Syria has loads of ATGMs where the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 20, 2017 Members Share Posted January 20, 2017 At least it was a quick death, I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ssnake said: At least it was a quick death, I guess. Are you sure the tank was not blown up after it was captured ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said: Are you sure the tank was not blown up after it was captured ? hit to the hull ammo bunker, and that's what the result would be. leclerc would fare no better. Edited January 21, 2017 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 8 hours ago, dejawolf said: hit to the hull ammo bunker, and that's what the result would be. leclerc would fare no better.  Yes , i also kinda figured as much but i did not want to jump to conclusions but how dare you say that about my "precious" Leclerc  The destroyed Leopard 2 reminds of this, where a Merkava 2 seem to have suffered the same fate during the 2006 Lebanon war: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeKiloPapa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 10 hours ago, dejawolf said: hit to the hull ammo bunker, and that's what the result would be. leclerc would fare no better. No....These 2 Leos and the armored car were captured intact by ISIS and subsequently destroyed by the Turkish Air Force weeks ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iarmor Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 22 hours ago, TankHunter said: Â Â Â 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I'm a little disappointed with the apparent poor performance of both the Leopard 2A4 and the Turkish army in general... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 22, 2017 Members Share Posted January 22, 2017 I don't know what you mean with "poor performance". Ammo stowage in the crew compartment always was a liability, no matter which tank you're looking at, with the two exceptions "Armata" and "M1 Abrams" where this was implemented at the early conceptual phase; do you know of any other tank that does this? IF the attacker succeeds with an armor perforation in the area, a big kaboom is inevitable (and, BTW, has been predicted in Steel Beasts since version 1.0). So there's only a few things that can be done here: Uparmor the hull surrounding the ammo stowage, or reduce the amount of ammo stowed there, apply an active protection system, or, in the absence of all that, keep the tank on the move rather than putting it into static overwatch positions. Â The first stack of measures requires a modification of the hardware, the last one is an operational/tactical decision. Which is the least costly, and the quickest to implement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 a third option is this: europowerpack in back, secure ammo storage in freed space, add fuel tank to front hull like on abrams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.