"leopards" in Syria and problems of German-Turkish relations. Analysis of the use of Leopard tanks in the Syrian war...and their opponents
German-made “cats” suffered losses in Syria again - Kurds
knocked out a Leopard tank from the Soviet Fagot ATGM. Is the quality of German weapons being over-praised, or is this result due to excessive self-confidence and inexperienced users? Let's try to understand the situation.
We spoke
For most of 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to openly blackmail the European Union, promising to open the border to the flow of refugees. Such statements could not but arouse caution, and after the notorious Turkish coup in July 2016, the situation became so tense that a number of EU countries interrupted or suspended military-technical cooperation with Turkey, including Germany.
It was definitely not worth quarreling with the EU (and especially with Germany, a long-time military-technical partner). 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. For now, the Turkish side can only admire proposals to improve reservations from the German concerns KMW and Rheinmetall in advertising brochures.
Turkish "Leopards" on the border with Syria
Secondly, an ambitious project - the promising Turkish Altay tank - was under threat. It suddenly became clear that there was much more German in it than “national”, so it would not be possible to rearm the army with new generation vehicles either “right now” or in the foreseeable future.
As a result, Türkiye was faced with the need to fight with what it had. While the EU “weapons” sanctions are in effect, a new car cannot be completed, and the existing ones cannot be improved to an acceptable condition.
"Seals" of retirement age
In 2005, Türkiye purchased 298 used Leopard 2A4s, which were later named Leopard 2A4TR. The differences from the “original” A-fours were minimal and did not concern the armor.
It must be said that 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 - early 1990s, almost all Leopard 2 first series (A0 - A3), built from 1979 to 1985, were rebuilt into this version. Judging by open data, the Turkish Leopard fleet consists of vehicles built in the early 1980s, which were supposed to hold back the Soviet T-64, T-72 and T-80 in battles in Western Europe. Turkish tanks never had dynamic protection, much less active protection systems, which clearly did not contribute to their survivability.
The human factor of the Turkish side
The lack of modern equipment 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.
In videos regularly appearing on the Internet, it is clearly visible that the Turkish military is using tanks in a completely different way than prescribed.
The Kurds do not have heavy equipment, so the Turks’ tanks 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 blithely roll around one or two at a time or stand still, exposing vulnerable spots to the ATGM gunners. Firing positions for tanks are not always equipped, and if they are equipped, they are hastily equipped and are unlikely to protect against anything.
The Leopards' ammunition racks are most likely filled with cumulative (HEAT) and high-explosive (HE) shells. This is probably why such a powerful explosion is visible in the video.
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 shells out of 42 placed are located in a rack in the front of the hull, to the left of the driver. From the forehead they are covered quite well, but if 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 the oddities. Judging by the data published by the Turkish side, with the help of anti-tank systems the Kurds more often 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 a minimum, are not published, and in the worst case scenario, there is little left from the operators.
Since Turkey has more resources, at this rate the Kurds will run out of either anti-tank systems or crews.
Is Leopard bad?
Leopard 2 tanks are in service with 18 countries, including Germany. They are planned to be supplied to four more countries. Of course, one can argue on the topic “Leopards shit themselves,” but, obviously, in similar conditions no tank would shine. There is reason to believe that the Turkish military would have destroyed the more modern modification of the Leopard, the T-90, or even the T-14 Armata.
After all, there are known cases when Middle Eastern tank crews abandoned perfectly 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 optical-electronic suppression system turned off. The result was a TOW-2A ATGM hit, the Syrian crew was saved by dynamic protection.
Another thing is clear: whoever wins the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, the German concerns KMW and Rheinmetall will ultimately win. Both current and future Leopard users will be clearly shown what happens to those who do not invest money in improving their tank fleet on time.
Modernization, it must be said, is not cheap. In January 2017, the Turkish Ministry of Defense was willing to spend $500 million to “upgrade” 200 tanks (some Leopard 2A4, some M60), which gives a rough figure of $2.5 million per combat vehicle.
Agree - a very good profit from someone else's stupidity.
The German main battle tank Leopard 2 was put into service at the very end of the seventies and still remains the basis of the armored forces of a number of countries. Thanks to timely upgrades, it is possible to maintain the characteristics of the machine at a fairly high level, modifying it to one degree or another in accordance with modern requirements. However, even after several upgrades, tanks do not become invulnerable, and therefore suffer losses in battles. Let us consider the features of the combat use and losses of Leopard-2 tanks during several armed conflicts.
Leopard 2 tanks were originally created as a defense against a "Soviet tank avalanche" during a hypothetical major war in Europe. However, such a conflict never began, causing the Leopard 2s to spend the last decade of the Cold War in regular service and various exercises. The most serious change in the situation on the continent, associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union, effectively ended any chance of German tanks going to war for the next few years. In particular, in connection with this, a significant number of armored vehicles were sold to third countries.
"Leopards" in the Balkans
Leopard 2 tanks managed to go to war for the first time only in the late nineties - approximately 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 equipment was supposed to be used for patrolling, protecting important objects, as well as 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 to Prizren on June 12, and already on the 13th one of them came under fire. Several fighters from one of the armed groups fired at a Leopard-2 tank located at a checkpoint. The armored vehicle was not fully equipped at that time and therefore could not respond to the shelling. However, small arms fire did not cause any damage to the tank, with the exception of chips in the paint. Two weeks later, one of the tanks had to fire warning fire from its main gun. The rest of the time, the tanks conducted patrols or were on duty near important objects.
At the end of 2000, a change in the composition of the German tank group began. Leopard 2A5 tanks previously operated by KFOR were replaced by vehicles of the previous modification 2A4. Such equipment was deployed in both Kosovo and Macedonia. Its service continued until 2004, after which the armored vehicles were recalled back to Germany. For a certain time, crews from the Netherlands served together with German tank crews in the Balkans. The army of this state has strengthened 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 events, from time to time coming 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
Leopard 2 tanks managed to go to war again a few years later, during the NATO operation in Afghanistan. The dispatch of German tanks to Afghan bases was preceded by curious events. Thus, 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 existing Leopard C2 vehicles (a modified version of the Leopard 1) were sent to Afghanistan at the end of 2006, but the advanced age of this equipment no longer allowed the desired results to be obtained. Because of this, Canada turned to Germany with a request to lease two dozen armored vehicles of newer models.
Leopard 2A4 of the Netherlands Armed Forces. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
In August 2007, the first of the German Leopard 2A6 tanks leased by Canada was delivered to its duty station. Soon the remaining tanks and a number of repair and recovery vehicles based on the same chassis were transported to Afghanistan. The rented 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 attachments of the Barracuda system, which reduced the visibility of the equipment and to a certain extent increased the crew’s comfort.
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 suffered noticeable damage, but the crew escaped with minor fear. The further fate of the blown up tank became a topic of debate. At first, reports appeared in the foreign press about the decommissioning of this vehicle due to the impossibility of repair, but later officials of the Canadian military department announced that the tank had been restored and returned to service.
Attack of the Turkish "Leopard-2" using 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 managed to support ISAF ground units during the battle and prevent a terrorist attack from the flank. During these operations the tanks suffered no losses.
On February 26, 2008, one of the Danish tanks ran over an improvised explosive device and received some damage to the chassis. 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 vehicle without any problems and leave in another armored vehicle. After the explosion, the second tank was able to drive about 200 m and only then stopped. Three tankers were wounded, but left the vehicle. The driver was unable to get out, and the doctors were unable to save him.
Detonation of a missile warhead. 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 took place in Helmand province, 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 in determining the outcome of the battle. After the completion of Operation Red Dagger, the tanks were returned to normal ISAF service. There were no further noticeable collisions with the enemy or losses.
War in Syria
The current war in Syria has long ceased to be an internal matter of the state, which has 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, it uses various types of weapons and equipment, including Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks.
The rear stowage of the Leopard 2A4 tank turret is one of the risk factors. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The deployment of tanks in close proximity to the Syrian border began at the end of last year. Initially, only relatively old vehicles of the M60 family were transferred, but over time it was the turn of the Leopard-2. In total, Turkey had more than 350 German-made tanks in service at the beginning of the fighting. At least several dozen vehicles 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 armored vehicles being hit from the side, followed by a large flash. The latter could indicate the most serious damage to the vehicles, up to the fire of the ammunition rack with subsequent burnout 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 terrorists.
Soon, some speculations regarding the recent attacks appeared in the foreign media. It was stated that all three tanks hit were disabled. In addition, experts made assumptions about the possible type of missiles used. Thus, American-made TOW 2 systems or Soviet/Russian “Fagot” or “Konkurs” systems could be used to destroy Turkish tanks. In all cases, we are talking about weapons captured from Syrian or Iraqi warehouses.
Soon the terrorists’ “news agency” reported on the group’s latest achievements. It was alleged that during the battles for the city of Al-Bab, terrorists were able to recapture Leopard-2 tanks from the Turkish army. Published photographs showed that Turkey had lost at least two vehicles of this type, as well as a certain amount of other materiel. It is curious that even six months later there were still no reports of the use of such tanks by terrorist units, which had previously quite actively used captured armored vehicles of other types.
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 battle sites were published. A summary table of losses also appeared, according to which during the battles Türkiye lost ten Leopard 2A4 tanks. According to the table, half of all losses were caused by enemy anti-tank missile systems, which caused serious damage to tanks. Another one was damaged by a rocket or mortar shell. Two cars were blown up by an explosive device, and another suffered damage to the bottom. The fate of the tenth tank was not established, but it was believed that it went to terrorists.
A little later, the terrorists published new photographs of Turkish tanks allegedly captured or destroyed by them. The vehicles in these photographs were in the most deplorable condition: there was damage to the hulls and chassis, knocked-down external equipment, and even turrets that had fallen off their shoulder straps. The terrorists claimed that these were the results of hits from anti-tank missiles or explosions using explosive-carrying vehicles. However, there is every reason to believe that at least some of these tanks were only damaged in battle and abandoned by the crews, after which the vehicles were subjected to air or artillery strikes in order to avoid capture 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 to solve assigned tasks on Syrian territory in one way or another, but, obviously, this is happening without significant risk to armored vehicles. Whether Leopards-2 will be actively used in combat again is unknown.
Causes and Effects
The not too long and active combat career of the Leopard 2 main tanks clearly demonstrates one interesting trend. While the tankers had to deal with Balkan armed forces, which had 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 trained gangs operate on Syrian territory, which has certain consequences. At the same time, it is not difficult to notice that the combat potential and survivability of Leopard-2 depends not only on the enemy’s weapons and training.
Burnt chassis of a Turkish tank. Photo Twitter.com/bjoernstritzel
In January of this year, after the largest losses in its entire operation, a number of publications appeared in foreign and domestic specialized publications devoted to the survivability of Leopard 2 armored vehicles in general and the peculiarities of its combat use by the Turkish army in particular. Experts agreed that the reasons for the recent large losses were both design flaws in armored vehicles and their not entirely competent use on the battlefield.
As you know, a characteristic feature of the Leopard 2 main battle tank is its powerful frontal armor. For example, strengthening protection through various means led to the formation of a recognizable appearance of the tower. However, such 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 rear niche of the turret, which accommodates one of the ammunition stowages, has similar protection. As a result, even outdated anti-tank missile systems can easily hit such equipment in the side or rear projection, and a hit in the rear of the tower leads to the most serious consequences.
Recent modernization projects for tanks of the Leopard-2 family involve the use of attachments that can increase the overall level of protection. However, Turkey only has version 2A4 vehicles, which cannot be equipped with screens and other systems. It should also be taken into account that even the latest tank renewal projects do not provide for the use of dynamic or active protection.
The battlefield after the battle. Photo Twitter.com/bjoernstritzel
It is unknown whether the terrorists knew about such features of German-made tanks, but 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 outdated missiles. At least five Turkish tanks were lost under such circumstances.
Another problem with armored vehicles is related to the characteristics of the theater of operations and crew training. 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 tank crews 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 losses of equipment of the Turkish army during the Battle of El Bab, Turkish and English version. Defense.ru
Improvised explosive devices have proven to be a serious challenge in Afghanistan and Syria. During battles with Afghan gangs, all three damaged Leopard-2s were disabled by mines. The proportion of such damage during the current Syrian war is noticeably lower, but even now explosive devices continue to pose a particular threat to tanks.
Since the late nineties, Leopard 2 main battle tanks of several modifications - and not always the newest and most advanced ones - managed to take part in three armed conflicts in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The first war ended without losses, 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 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 its current form and continue to improve it.
It is unknown what conclusions will be drawn from the results of the recent failures near El-Bab. 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, controlled by insufficiently trained crews and not integrated into modern information and control systems, do not have much chance of surviving in a modern local conflict, not to mention successfully solving the assigned combat mission. This means that Leopard 2 and other modern main tanks must continue to improve.
Based on materials from sites:
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/
The interconnected conflicts plaguing the modern Middle East have resulted in enormous human suffering and have profoundly impacted the entire world. Among other things, they undermined the reputation of the main Western tanks, previously considered virtually invulnerable.
Iraqi M1 Abrams not only failed to prevent the capture of Mosul in 2014, but were also captured, subsequently turning against their own masters. In Yemen, many Saudi M1s were destroyed by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which lost several M60 Pattons and modified M60T Sabras in clashes with the Kurds and ISIS militants (banned in the Russian Federation, ed.), was eventually forced to deploy the formidable German-made Leopard-2A4. Within a matter of days, 8 or 10 of them were destroyed by ISIS.
Although in some cases these tanks would have performed better had they been equipped with additional protective modifications, the technical shortcomings were not so important compared to the training of the crew, their morale, and sound command tactics. After all, even the most armored tank will be vulnerable from the sides, rear and top - and the rebels, with decades of military experience, have learned to lay traps for unwisely deployed tanks using long-range anti-tank shells fired from several miles away.
The only exception in the series of ruined reputations was the Russian T-90A tank - Russia has 550 of these vehicles in service, which will remain the best among its main battle tanks until the full introduction of the T-14 Armata. The T-90 was developed in the late 1990s, combining the hull of the mass-produced T-92 with the turret of the more technically advanced, but generally unsuccessful, T-80. Possessing the same low landing and a crew of three (the 2A46M self-loading gun made it possible to get rid of the loader), the fifty-ton T-90A is noticeably lighter than the seventy-ton M1A2 and Leopard-2.
In 2015, when Moscow intervened in the Syrian war on the side of the besieged Bashar al-Assad, it transferred about thirty T-90A, as well as modified T-62M and T-72, to the Syrian Arab Army. The Syrian army desperately needed these reinforcements, having lost more than 2,000 armored vehicles over the past few years - especially heavy losses occurred after the Syrian rebels received American TOW-2A missiles in 2014. The T-90s were distributed among the 4th Armored Division, the Brigade Desert Falcons (composed of SAA veterans and led by military leaders loyal to Assad), as well as the Tiger Forces, an elite battalion-sized SAA unit that specializes in offensive operations.
In February 2016, Syrian rebels filmed a TOW missile hitting a T-90 tank in northeast Aleppo. The shell exploded in a blinding flash, however, when the smoke cleared, it became clear that the Kontakt-5 dynamic protection led to a premature explosion of the TOW, minimizing the damage caused to it (which did not immediately reach the tank gunner - in the full video he got out of the already open hatch and escaped on foot). One way or another, the video gained mass popularity.
Although the main Western tanks are superior in firepower to the T-90A, it has a number of defensive systems that are particularly effective against anti-tank shells, which most Abrams and Leopard-2s lack - and anti-tank shells have destroyed far more armored vehicles than main tank guns .
Context
Will the T-90 beat the best American tank?
The National Interest 16.04.2018Why Oplot is better than the T-90
Business capital 04.03.2018Which tank is better: Chinese Type 99, M1 Abrams or T-90
The National Interest 25.01.2018Who will win the fight: T-90 or Abrams?
The National Interest 30.08.2017Chase in the desert on the T-90
Military Advisor 06/26/2017 If you look at the T-90A from the front, you will notice the eerie “eyes” on its turret - a sure way to distinguish this tank from the visually similar modernized T-72. In fact, these are emitters designed to disrupt the laser guidance system on missiles - when they are active, they glow an ominous red color. The emitters are one of the components of the active protection of the T-90 Shtora-1, which is also capable of launching smoke grenades that release an aerosol cloud that jams infrared rays. The Shtor also features a 360-degree laser light detector that automatically triggers countermeasures if the tank is marked by enemy lasers—the system can even turn the tank's gun toward attackers. The next level of protection for the T-90 is Kontakt-5 reactive armor, which explodes before the projectile hits to knock out its warhead and add additional obstacles in its path.Did the T-90's reactive armor and the Shtora system provide guaranteed protection against long-range anti-tank shells? No - but you will only know this if you find much lesser-known video footage of the destruction or capture of a T-90 by rebels or government forces. Jakub Janowski has devoted his time to finding and recording information about armored vehicle casualties in Syria, and recently published a huge archive of more than 143 gigabytes of video footage, which includes both crimes committed by parties to the conflict and many battles involving anti-tank shells.
According to Yanovsky, he is aware of the destruction of 5 or 6 of the 30 T-90As delivered to the SAA during 2016 and 2017 - most of them fell victim to TOW-2A guided missiles (it is worth noting that some of the destroyed tanks can be restored with significant repairs) . Four more were hit, but their condition is unknown. Of course, there could be other, undocumented losses - there are also cases when it was impossible to determine the model of the tank by its appearance.
Additionally, HTS Alliance rebels captured two T-90s and used them in combat; another one was captured by ISIS in November 2017. In June 2016, rebels of the “Sham Conquest Front” (an organization banned in the Russian Federation, ed.) disabled the T-90 with the help of TOW-2. The video, subsequently shot by a drone, captured smoke rising from the turret hatch and the light of the Shtora emitters characteristic of the T-90. Another video, filmed on June 14, 2016, in Aleppo, shows a T-90 making a sharp turn and rushing for cover - apparently the crew noticed an approaching TOW missile. However, it hit his side or rear armor. The tank exploded, filling the air with debris, but continued to roll toward cover.
Another T-90A was hit by either the TOW-like Russian Konkurs missile or the more powerful AT-14 Kornet laser-guided missile near Khanasser in Syria, injuring the gunner. The crew eventually abandoned the tank as fire spread from the machine gun nest to the rest of the vehicle and ignited the 125mm rounds in the automatic loading system. Placing ammunition in the middle of the tank, next to the crew, rather than in a separate storage area, as is done in the M1, has long been a disadvantage of Russian tanks.
Meanwhile, the rebels were servicing two T-90s in an abandoned brick factory in Idlib province. And in April 2017, a rebel T-90A, additionally protected by sandbags, supported the rebel offensive on Maadan, which was covered by the Russian media. One T-90A was later recaptured by the government and another was disabled, reportedly by a T-72 that was hit in its side armor by a kinetic round.
In October, ISIS militants captured a T-90A from the 4th Tank Division when it drove into a sandstorm near Al-Mayadeen in eastern Syria. Later, on November 16, 2017, ISIS set a trap for a Tiger Force tank column and shot down the turret of a T-90A, leaving the tank overturned in the desert. His crew was reportedly killed. However, media loyal to Assad claim that it was in fact a T-90, previously captured by ISIS, found unusable and destroyed for propaganda purposes.
This does not mean that the T-90’s protective systems do not work. In an extraordinary incident captured on July 28, 2016, a T-90 tank near Al Mallah Farms near Aleppo was hit by a TOW missile but escaped the resulting dust cloud unscathed thanks to its reactive armor. As the armored vehicle rolled desperately away, the TOW-launching squad hit it with a second missile - however, the tank survived this attack, despite the damage it caused.
According to Yanovsky, he knows of no cases in which a T-90 would be destroyed by close combat weapons, since “the regime rarely uses the T-90 in close combat, especially after the capture of two of these tanks by the enemy.” According to Yanovsky, the T-90 demonstrated comparative success, despite losses caused by "excessive self-confidence and poor coordination with infantry inherent in the SAA."
According to Yanovsky, the T-90's most useful feature was its guidance and fire system, superior to that of previous Russian tanks. “The T-90s performed well when they were able to fire at insurgents from afar or at night, taking advantage of the advanced optics and computer systems they had.” Indeed, since the mid-2000s, T-90A tanks have received French Catherine-FS thermal imagers.
Of course, the small number of T-90s could not have a significant impact on the large-scale civil war that has been raging for many years. However, Janowski believes there are lessons to be learned from their use. “The regime was lucky that the rebels did not receive long-range anti-tank missiles that strike from above - they would have been a reliable means of destroying the T-90.” Such missiles include the Javelin and TOW-2B.
“In my opinion, the big problem with the T-90 (and most other modern tanks) is the complete lack of an active protection system that shoots down missiles - ideally, it should have 360-degree coverage, but 270 degrees is the minimum. Without such a system, the tank is vulnerable not only to cheap grenade launchers in urban combat, but also to guided anti-tank missiles fired at an unexpected angle. Given the range of modern anti-tank missiles [typically 2 to 5 miles], situations will regularly occur in combat in which it will be possible to strike the side armor of enemy tanks from distant positions."
According to reports, Russia intends to upgrade its T-90A, currently technologically inferior to the T-90MS in service in the Indian Army, to the T-90M model, equipped with a new active protection system, updated reactive armor and a more powerful 2A82 gun. Losses in Syria indicate that any tank - be it the T-90, M-1 or Leopard-2 - is vulnerable on a battlefield where there are many long-range anti-tank missiles. Active protection and missile warning systems are vital to combating this threat - but so are careful tactical deployments, crew training and improved infantry coordination to minimize the threat of long-range attacks and ambushes, while also providing the tank with additional support in detecting potential threats.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
We recently talked about what armored troops armed with American Abrams tanks are doing. ISIS* militants are destroying them en masse with the help of both American and Russian anti-tank missile systems. Now it has become known that the German Leopard-2 tank did not pass strength tests in real combat conditions. According to various sources, from five to ten Leopards have already been burned in battles.
This tank is considered the pride of Germany. Since 1977, more than 3 thousand main battle tanks of various modifications have been produced. In Syria, the Turkish army is fighting with Leopard-2A4 tanks, which are approximately in the middle of the scale of combat capabilities of various modifications. In addition to the armies of Germany and Turkey, armored divisions of 20 more countries are armed with this tank. The largest purchases at one time were made by Austria, Türkiye, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and Greece.
From a theoretical point of view, the German tank should have been more protected against missile attacks than the American one. Since its modification 2A4, which appeared in the late 80s, was maximally protected from any type of attack. Armor protection was sharply increased, which is why the tank's weight increased from 50 to 55 tons. Additional measures have been introduced to increase crew survivability. The firepower of the vehicle was also increased.
Yes, Leopard-2 is a good tank. It couldn’t be otherwise, because Germany has had its own tank building school for several decades. It is represented by the mechanical 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 was the main battle tank of the Bundeswehr from 1965 to 1980.
After the Leopard 1's modernization options had been exhausted, Krauss-Maffei created a new main battle tank. Which became significantly more expensive, and therefore the production volume of Leopard-2 was reduced to 3000 versus 6000 for Leopard-1.
Of course, the combat capabilities of the new vehicle have increased significantly. Thus, instead of a 105 mm rifled gun, the Rheinmetall smoothbore gun of 120 mm caliber began to be used. Armor-piercing finned sub-caliber projectiles of increased power have appeared in the line of ammunition.
However, the gun, which has a good range and shooting accuracy, does not have an automatic loader. And this is almost an atavism in these days, because the absence of a machine gun almost directly affects the combat capabilities of the tank:
- firstly, the rate of fire of the gun decreases, since the loader has to make many similar repetitive movements;
- secondly, the accumulating fatigue of the loader can lead to errors during shooting or when performing any actions on which the success of the tank on the battlefield depends;
- thirdly, in the absence of a gun automatic loader, part of the ammunition is located in close proximity to the loader. And this is fraught with tragic consequences in the event of detonation or fire.
Let's try to take a closer look at the tank's security. It would seem that German designers, armed with significant experience in creating previous modifications of the tank and testing it both in testing grounds and in combat conditions, should have made a low-vulnerability vehicle. In addition, they did not particularly take into account 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. The main battle tanks of the top five - British, Israeli, American, French - have approximately the same cost characteristics...
As for the Russian one, it costs only 2.5 million. And at the same time, it leaves behind foreign-made tanks in a number of characteristics. This is one of the reasons that Russian manufacturers are the undisputed leaders in the global tank market.
It would seem that the armor protection of the Leopard-2A4 is designed at the highest engineering and technical level. The armor accounts for 52% of the total mass of the tank, which is 29 tons. In addition, modern multi-layer armor is used, which can significantly weaken the effect of enemy ammunition.
To reduce the angle of impact of the projectile with the armor, the upper frontal plate of the hull has a large angle of inclination. The thickness of the frontal armor of the turret was increased to 700 mm. Since previous modifications had weak mine protection, the thickness of the tank’s bottom armor was increased to 30-70 mm. We made sure that an enemy shell that penetrated the armor caused the minimum possible harm to the crew and the tank. To do this, the internal surfaces of the tank's fighting compartment were covered with synthetic mats made of high-strength armid fiber. When interacting with mats, fragments that have pierced the armor reduce their energy and the conical angle of expansion.
In theory, such a tank should have high survivability. But this is only true regarding the time of its creation, i.e. 80s. Since then, both anti-tank weapons and tank battle tactics have changed. The Americans have already been burned by this, when in Iraq in the mid-2000s Abrams were destroyed in large numbers by Iraqi partisans. Moreover, they did not use sub-caliber shells with a depleted uranium core, but primitive homemade mines and vintage RPG-7 grenade launchers. In just over a year, 80 Abrams were destroyed. American designers, having analyzed the causes of losses, modernized the tank, adapting it to urban battles as much as possible. One of the most important design decisions was the strengthening of dynamic armor protection in various directions.
Until recently, the designers of Leopard-2 were not bitten by the roasted rooster. These tanks took part in military operations in Afghanistan at the beginning of the century. There were complaints about their quality, but the complaints were of a “peaceful nature”, since the “Leopards” practically did not participate in battles at that time. And their vulnerability when fired by not the most modern ammunition could not be determined. And now, when the tank was finally tested in real life, it’s a scandal. ISIS insists that they destroyed 10 Leopards belonging to Turkey.
According to German data, losses amounted to 5 tanks. The Turkish crews simply abandoned the 2 destroyed tanks, and they went to ISIS militants as trophies. One tank was seriously damaged by a missile from the American TOW-2 anti-tank system, but the crew escaped. 2 tanks were destroyed by a Soviet anti-tank missile "Fagot", the crews were killed.
What can you say offhand? Still, the armor protection of the Leopard-2A4 does not quite meet the requirements of our time. The tank does not have dynamic armor protection, which consists of cells attached to the armor that act as explosive packages. When a projectile comes into contact with a cell, it explodes, which leads to the neutralization of enemy ammunition. 700 mm of frontal armor is not enough in modern times. Now many tanks have increased their frontal armor to up to a meter.
As before, the Leopard has poor underbody armor, and therefore the tank may become a victim of homemade mines.
The tank, hit by an American TOW-2 anti-tank missile, was absolutely powerless against it. Because a missile with a tandem cumulative 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 1970s-era Soviet wire-guided Fagot anti-tank missile is a more serious blow to the tank's reputation. The fact is that the Fagot’s warhead is smaller (2.5 kg versus 6 kg for the TOW-2), and its armor penetration is 600 mm.
The situation was somewhat different when the same American TOW-2 missile hit a Syrian army T-90A tank. Information about the armor of this tank is still classified. But it is known that it widely uses composite armor, which includes layers of 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 a Shtora active protection complex that counters fire from high-precision weapons.
Under normal operating conditions of a Russian tank, nothing happens to it in Syria. There are known cases where up to 4 hits from armor-piercing ammunition had virtually 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 in an absolutely incompetent manner. No infantry support. The tank was used alone, and not as part of a platoon. No one recorded the moment the ATGM fired. The tank stood still and did not maneuver. The Shtora complex was turned off. The hatches on the tower are open. It was through the hatch that the shock wave, generated when the 6-kilogram warhead of an anti-tank missile exploded, entered the tank. As a result, the shell-shocked gunner-operator jumped out of the tank in a state of stress. As a result, the tank passed into the hands of terrorists.
————————————————————
*The Islamic State movement was recognized as a terrorist organization by a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on December 29, 2014, and its activities in Russia are prohibited.
- Get rid of your husband's mistress prayer Prayer from your husband's mistress
- A strong prayer for the preservation of family, love and marriage
- Prayer to the Holy Matrona of Moscow for help in the family and preservation of well-being
- Accounting for the developer Tax accounting for shared construction for the developer