Last week, one of the most famous German weekly publications Stern (yellow press, but nonetheless) 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 three Leopard-2A4 tanks of the Turkish army at once on the outskirts of the Syrian city of Al-Bab. Kramper notes that ISIS militants (banned in Russia) removed 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 german car visited Afghanistan, but things did not go beyond a few minor skirmishes with the Taliban.
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 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 the 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 in the German army is considered obsolete 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 Russian tank The T-90 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 bluntly states that the level of training of Turkish tankers is much lower than that of combat armor-piercers. However, this does not change the fact that in similar situations Russian technology allows crews to make mistakes without critical risk to life.
Further - worse. In addition to the destroyed tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the Caliphate reported that about 70 FSA fighters and Turkish soldiers were killed near Al-Bab during a suicide counterattack, and 2 more Leopard-2 tanks, 1 Turkish infantry fighting vehicle and 1 bulldozer. One of the "Leopards" captured by the Caliphate has already been destroyed by an air strike, the second Caliphate is being dragged somewhere.
This, so to speak, is a further development of the answer to the question “How will the Leopards show themselves in Syria?” Not much yet.
PS. The problem with Leopard 2 is that it is designed for defensive battles in Europe. He has strong frontal armor, but very weak side armor - accordingly, he does not hold the old Fagot in the side projection. Pichalka.
The German main battle tank Leopard 2 was adopted at the very end of the seventies and still remains the basis armored forces a number of countries. Due to timely upgrades, it is possible to maintain the characteristics of the machine at a sufficiently high level, in one way or another modifying it in accordance with modern requirements. However, even after several upgrades, tanks do not become invulnerable, and therefore they suffer losses in battles. Let us consider the features of the combat use and losses of the Leopard-2 tanks during several armed conflicts.
Initially, the Leopard 2 tanks were created as a means of protection against the "Soviet tank avalanche" during a hypothetical major war in Europe. However, such a conflict never began, which is why the last decade of the Cold War "Leopards-2" was spent on regular service and various exercises. The most serious change in the situation in the continent associated with the collapse Soviet Union, for the next few years, actually deprived the German tanks of all chances to go to war. In particular, in connection with this, a significant number of armored vehicles were sold to third countries.
"Leopards" in the Balkans
For the first time, Leopard 2 tanks managed to go to war only in the late nineties - about two decades after entering service. In June 1999, 28 Leopard 2A5 tanks from the Bundeswehr were transferred to the KFOR (Kosovo Force or KFOR) structure, designed to stabilize the situation in Kosovo. The technique was supposed to be used for patrolling, protecting important objects, as well as for demonstrating strength and moral influence on the conflicting parties.
German tank Leopard 2A5 as part of the KFOR contingent. Photo defenseindustrydaily.com
The tanks were deployed in the city of Prizren on June 12, and already on the 13th one of them came under fire. Several fighters of one of the armed groups fired at the Leopard-2 tank, which was at the checkpoint. The armored car at that time was not fully equipped and therefore could not respond to the shelling. However, the small-arms fire did not cause any damage to the tank, with the exception of chips on the paint. Two weeks later, one of the tanks had to conduct warning fire from the main gun. The rest of the time, the tanks were patrolling or on duty near important objects.
At the end of 2000, a change in the composition of the grouping of German tanks began. The Leopard 2A5 tanks previously operated by KFOR were replaced by vehicles of the previous 2A4 modification. Such equipment has been deployed in both Kosovo and Macedonia. Her service continued until 2004, after which the armored vehicles were recalled back to Germany. From a certain time along with German tankmen crews from the Netherlands served in the Balkans. The army of this state reinforced the local NATO contingent with several tanks of the 2A4 and 2A5 versions.
During the events on the territory of the disintegrating Yugoslavia, German-made tanks regularly participated in various operations and activities, from time to time falling under enemy fire. However, in all such cases, the enemy soldiers did not have serious weapons at their disposal, so the tanks did not suffer any losses.
Afghanistan. First losses
The Leopard 2 tanks again managed to go to war a few years later, during the NATO operation in Afghanistan. The sending of German tanks to the Afghan bases was preceded by curious events. So, at the beginning of the last decade, the command of the Canadian Army considered the issue of abandoning the existing main tanks in favor of wheeled armored vehicles. However, the first experience of combat work in Afghanistan showed that such a decision was premature. The available Leopard C2 machines (a modified version of the Leopard 1) were sent to Afghanistan at the end of 2006, but the considerable age of this equipment no longer allowed to obtain the desired results. Because of this, Canada turned to Germany with a request to lease two dozen armored vehicles of newer models.
Leopard 2A4 of the armed forces of the Netherlands. Photo by Wikimedia Commons
In August 2007, the first of the German Leopard 2A6 tanks leased by Canada was delivered to the duty station. Soon, the remaining tanks and a number of recovery vehicles based on the same chassis were transported to Afghanistan. The leased equipment was supposed to be used as part of patrols, to protect bases, etc.
In October of the same year, one of the units of the Jutland Dragoon Regiment of the Danish Armed Forces arrived in Afghanistan. It was armed with four Leopard 2A5DK tanks (including one reserve), a recovery vehicle and several armored personnel carriers. It is curious that the Danish tanks, unlike the German-Canadian ones, were equipped with mounted modules of the Barracuda system, which reduced the visibility of vehicles and, to a certain extent, increased the convenience of the crew.
On November 2, 2007, a Canadian Leopard 2A6 tank, equipped with an additional protection system, was blown up by an improvised explosive device planted by terrorists. The car received noticeable damage, but the crew escaped with a slight fright. The further fate of the blown up tank became a topic of controversy. First, there were reports in the foreign press about the decommissioning of this machine due to the impossibility of repair, but later official representatives The Canadian War Department said the tank had been restored and returned to service.
Attack of the Turkish "Leopard-2" with the help of an anti-tank missile system. Photo Southfront.org
Later, the "Leopards" of the Canadian and Danish armies repeatedly participated in patrols, and also supported other units with fire. One of the most successful episodes of the combat use of such equipment took place in early 2008, when several Danish tanks during the battle managed to support ISAF ground units and prevent terrorist attacks from the flank. During these operations, the tanks suffered no losses.
On February 26, 2008, one of the Danish tanks ran into an improvised explosive device and received some damage to the undercarriage. However, problems with the chassis did not prevent him from returning to base under his own power. After a short repair, the car was returned to full operation.
On July 25 of the same year, another clash with the enemy led to the first losses. Two Leopard 2A6 tanks were blown up by mines. The crew of one of them was able to leave the car without any problems and leave in another armored vehicle. The second tank after the explosion was able to drive about 200 m and only then stopped. Three tankers were wounded, but left the car. The driver was unable to get out, and the doctors were unable to save him.
Undermining the warhead of the rocket. Photo Southfront.org
The last major battle in Afghanistan, which took place with the participation of Leopard-2 tanks, took place at the end of 2008. During Operation Red Dagger, which was carried out in the province of Helmand, several tanks provided fire support to the infantry. Subsequently, the command spoke highly of the work of the tankers. Armored vehicles were called the decisive factor that determined the outcome of the battle. After the completion of Operation Red Dagger, the tanks were returned to normal ISAF service. There were no noticeable clashes with the enemy or losses in the future.
War in Syria
The current war in Syria has long ceased to be internal affairs state, which led to well-known consequences. One of the interested parties in the current situation is Turkey, which wants to become at least one of the leaders in the region. As a consequence, the Turkish army openly entered the war. In new operations, she uses a variety of weapons and equipment, including the main battle tanks Leopard 2A4.
The aft turret of the Leopard 2A4 tank is one of the risk factors. Photo by Wikimedia Commons
The deployment of tanks in the immediate vicinity of the Syrian border began at the end of last year. Initially, only relatively old vehicles of the M60 family were transferred, but over time, the turn came to the Leopards-2. In total, more than 350 German-made tanks were in service with Turkey by the beginning of the fighting. At least several dozen cars were deployed to fight terrorists.
Leopard 2A4 tanks entered Syria in early December last year, and just a few days later, the first reports of losses appeared. In the middle of the month, it became known that from December 12 to 14, militants from one of the largest terrorist groups fired at three Turkish tanks using anti-tank missile systems. Published photographs and videos showed the defeat of armored vehicles in the side projection, followed by a large flash. The latter could indicate the most serious damage to the vehicles, up to the ignition of the ammunition rack, followed by the burning out of the fighting compartment. The details of these incidents, however, were not specified. The Turkish military department chose not to comment on the successful shooting of the terrorists.
Soon some speculation appeared in the foreign media regarding the recent attacks. It was claimed that all three tanks fired upon were put out of action. In addition, experts speculated about the possible type of missiles used. So, American-made TOW 2 complexes or Soviet / Russian Fagot or Konkurs could be used to destroy Turkish tanks. In all cases, we are talking about weapons seized in Syrian or Iraqi warehouses.
Soon the "information agency" of the terrorists reported on the latest achievements of the group. It was alleged that during the battles for the city of El-Bab, the terrorists were able to recapture the Leopard-2 tanks from the Turkish army. Published photographs showed that Turkey lost at least two machines of this type, as well as a number of other materiel. It is curious that even six months later there were no reports of the operation of such tanks by terrorist units, which had previously quite actively used other types of captured armored vehicles.
Destroyed tanks in the al-Bab area. Photo Twitter.com/bjoernstritzel
By the end of December, new information appeared about the losses of Turkish equipment near El-Bab, and in addition, photographs from the battlefield were published. A summary table of losses also appeared, according to which, during the fighting, Turkey lost ten Leopard 2A4 tanks. According to the table, half of all losses occurred in anti-tank missile systems the enemy, causing serious damage to the tanks. Another was damaged by a rocket or mortar. Two cars were blown up by an explosive device, another one received damage to the bottom. The fate of the tenth tank was not established, but it was believed that the terrorists got it.
A little later, the terrorists published new photographs of Turkish tanks allegedly captured or destroyed by them. The vehicles in these pictures were in the most deplorable condition: there were damage to the hulls and chassis, knocked down external equipment, and even turrets that had flown off the shoulder strap. The terrorists claimed that these were the results of being hit by anti-tank missiles or blown up with the help of vehicles carrying explosives. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that at least some of these tanks were only damaged in battle and left by the crews, after which the vehicles were attacked by aircraft or artillery in order to avoid being captured by the enemy.
It should be noted that after the end of the fighting near the city of El-Bab, there were no new reports of losses of Turkish Leopard 2A4 tanks. The Turkish army continues by one means or another to solve the assigned tasks on Syrian territory, but, obviously, this is happening without a significant risk to armored vehicles. Whether "Leopards-2" will again be actively used in battles is unknown.
Cause and effect
The not too long and active combat career of the Leopard 2 main tanks clearly demonstrates one curious trend. While the tankers had to deal with the Balkan armed formations, which had a very limited potential in terms of weapons, there were virtually no problems. The terrorists from Afghanistan had more powerful weapons at their disposal, which led to losses. Finally, well-armed and well-trained bandit formations are operating on the territory of Syria, which has well-known consequences. At the same time, it is easy to see that the combat potential and survivability of Leopards-2 depends not only on the armament and training of the enemy.
Burnt chassis of a Turkish tank. Photo Twitter.com/bjoernstritzel
In January of this year, after the largest losses in the entire operation, a number of publications appeared in foreign and domestic specialized publications on the survivability of the Leopard 2 armored vehicles in general and the features of its combat use by the Turkish army in particular. Experts agreed that the reasons for the recent heavy losses were both flaws in the design of armored vehicles, and its not quite competent use on the battlefield.
As is known, feature The main battle tank Leopard 2 is a powerful armored frontal projection. For example, the strengthening of protection with the help of various means led to the formation of a recognizable image of the tower. However, such a powerful combined armor based on steel, hard alloys and ceramics is present only in the frontal part of the hull and turret. Other elements of the tank are protected by homogeneous steel armor. Among other things, the aft niche of the tower, which contains one of the stacks of ammunition, has a similar protection. As a result, even outdated anti-tank missile systems can easily hit such equipment in a side or aft projection, and hitting the rear of the tower leads to the most serious consequences.
Recent projects for the modernization of tanks of the Leopard-2 family involve the use of overhead elements that can increase general level protection. However, Turkey only has 2A4 version machines that cannot be equipped with screens and other systems. It should also be borne in mind that even the latest tank upgrade projects do not provide for the use of dynamic or active protection.
The battlefield after the battle. Photo Twitter.com/bjoernstritzel
It is not known whether the terrorists knew about such features of German-made tanks, but the published photographs and videos clearly show the competent organization of the attacks. The militants do not even try to fire at armored vehicles from the front hemisphere, preferring to attack the side of the hull or turret. These elements of the tank have a lower level of protection and, as a result, are not a difficult target even for obsolete missiles. At least five Turkish tanks were lost under such circumstances.
Another problem of armored vehicles is connected with the peculiarities of the theater of operations and the training of crews. A significant part of the fighting in Syria takes place in urban areas, which leads to additional risks and, accordingly, reduces the survivability of equipment. Insufficient training of tankers to work in such conditions, as well as improper organization of combat work, can not only negatively affect the effectiveness of battles, but also lead to unjustified losses of equipment and personnel.
Table with information on the loss of equipment of the Turkish army during the battle of El Bab, Turkish and English versions. Defense.ru
Improvised explosive devices have shown themselves to be a serious challenge in Afghanistan and Syria. During the battles with Afghan gangs, all three damaged Leopard-2s were disabled precisely with the help of mines. The share of such damage during the current Syrian war is noticeably less, but even now explosive devices continue to pose a particular threat to tanks.
Since the late nineties, the Leopard 2 main battle tanks of several modifications - and not always the newest and most advanced ones - have managed to take part in three armed conflicts in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The first war ended without loss, during the second, several vehicles were damaged, but later returned to service, and the third conflict led to the most serious losses. At the same time, both the developers and operators of the Leopard-2 family of tanks now have a certain amount of information that allows them to evaluate the equipment in current form and continue to improve it.
What conclusions will be drawn from the results of recent failures near El-Bab is unknown. Probably, the loss of ten tanks at once will lead to additional improvement of armored vehicles in one way or another. However, one of the most important conclusions can already be drawn. In their current form, tanks of relatively old modifications, driven by insufficiently trained crews and not integrated into modern information and control systems, have little chance of surviving in the conditions of a modern local conflict, not to mention the successful solution of the assigned combat mission. This means that both the Leopard 2 and other modern main tanks must be improved further.
According to the websites:
http://defence.ru/
https://southfront.org/
http://defence-blog.com/
http://defense-watch.com/
http://stern.de/
http://theglobeandmail.com/
http://casr.ca/
http://defenseindustrydaily.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
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 work of the Turkish Leopard 2A4TR tanks in Syria so that we know about the vehicle itself, the doctrine and environment where he acted, 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, like 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 fully utilize 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 them 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 see:
“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 transfer 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 poor decisions and place their tanks in vulnerable positions that were monitored by ISIS* and its experienced tank hunter units equipped with ATGMs, 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 sideways by an ATGM, damage is inevitable at the impact site, but limited by automatic fire suppression systems, heavily protected ammo boxes, fireproof items, crew clothing, etc. this moment we can say that the Leopard 2A4 resisted these terrible consequences well, considering 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.
In general, Syria is a dry country, but in the north there is snow and very low temperatures during the coldest months of winter, but this is not a problem for the Leopard 2, which is very well suited for 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.
In terms of used ammunition, as far as we were free in inspecting the tanks, we saw M325 HEAT-MP-T (Multi-Purpose 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 armor. modern tanks type T-72 or T-90, 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 rounds were able to penetrate through both sides T-72 and leave the tank without destroying anything. If they can go through the entire vehicle and get out without any consequences, why use them in Syria?
As we all know, ISIS makes extensive use of the SVBIED (shahid mobile) mounted on armored civilian vehicles x moving at high speed, they are quite destructive and difficult to hit targets, HEAT and HE projectiles can hit VBIED, but their trajectories are highly parabolic due to their lower muzzle velocity compared to KE rounds, which are approximately 1.600 m / s in comparison from approx. 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 fighting, in which Leopard 2 participated, were associated with the battle for the city of Al-Bab and, especially, clashes for a 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 equipment. The main FER tool in the Turkish army is the M88A1, originally based on power plants M-48 / M-60, 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, because 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 a lot of 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 ISIS positions, firing their main cannons and co-axial machine guns, however we don't know their level of coordination with the FSA.
We also believe that, apart from the tank's own capabilities, Turkish troops 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 VBL (Véhicule Blindé) type AMX-56s 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 sniper rifle AIAW, these rifles are only used by specialized sniper units, (SFs in particular have this type of weapon,) you don't usually expect to see them being used with armored units, this gives us an idea of how hybrid warfare is out there,
where Turkish Leopard 2 operate.
Because Leopard 2s usually act like simple means fire support, and not as part of purely offensive and advancing forces, they (probably) do not need artillery fire support themselves, therefore, artillery and mainly 155-mm SPH T-155 do not act by clearing the area in front of tanks against 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 control 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. air force, seem to operate both on predetermined targets and providing close air support.
But the main problem is that the FSA, which is theoretically considered the front 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 3 to 8 cm thick of normal 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. , 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 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 causes him heavy, but recoverable damage. 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 severely 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 rear end turrets where 120mm shells were placed ready for use. The impact resulted in 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, in theory 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 the charge (ATGM) of the medium range type 9M115-2 Metis-M with a high ability to penetrate the side of the Leopard 2, again we see a very weakness at 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 the tank by destroying the 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".
AT in social networks it is claimed that the tank was loaded with bombs and a shot from Barrett's M82A1 caused its destruction.
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 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 mud 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.
