How Leopard 2 tank was defeat In Syria
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2021
- Germany’s Leopard 2 main battle tank has a reputation as one of the finest in the world, competing for that distinction with proven designs such as the American M-1 Abrams and the British Challenger 2. However, that reputation for nigh-invincibility has faced setbacks on Syrian battlefields, and placed Berlin in a uniquely awkward national-level dispute with Turkey, its fellow NATO member.
The question is why did Turkish soldiers suffer a terrible defeat although they were equipped with one of the best and most modern combat tools?
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 1 Day 2 // GEN vs T1 | PRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZkFjjJNwzH0/mqdefault.jpg)
That sounds like it was completely turkey's own fault, not Germany's. They just sent a bunch of Tanks out to the battle Zone without any cover and without air support being possible because of weather. They treated them like they were super tanks.
Also the 2a4 is very old
If a weapon is outdated or not depends on the enemies weapons.
@@monodoc4767 im pretty sure they were using modernish anti tank missiles which the 2a4 is allergic to. No warning recievers, No aps and mediocre armor
@@fidelcastro9869 modern? I think TOW is far older if not as same generation with leopard
@@kohndoe9440 i mean still enough to kill it
A bad workman always blames his tools
that quote is brilliant has all the logic
So their strategy.
Tank : Big box steel, rush mode
ATGM : Mobile tank killer, jump scare mode
Many European tanks and other equipment are not battle proven, compared to US and sometimes Russian equipments. Test fields are not the battlefield. And no country would give you their best version of equipment too
Maybe its the tool using the tool
A yes, brain dead argument would also work on how arab panzer 4s failed against centurion MBTs, of course we shouldnt blame the tool when even the panzer 4 crews accually did try to use their tools, of course... WTF are you talking about?
if Russian tanks are decimated then they are bad tanks.. if European and American tanks are decimated then its the fault of strategy and military crew...
Europeans always talk like this from where they sit bro. They haven't fired a bullet in the last 80 years.
Facts. Its called mental gymnastics. They're just coping. Its like when they say that Russia won WW2 mainly due to winter, otherwise they'd be fked.
are you dumb, there is a total difference between soviet nuclear doctrine tanks (which are old like 50 years) and the new doctrine tanks used by western countries
Because Russian tanks are bad….. and they have bad crews
Orcs🖕▪️🇷🇺🏳️🌈💩
German modern tanks are seriously overrated because of the memories of the Tiger of World War II.
Tiger back then has many major flaws. Its expensive, ineficient and transmision problem. But armor was good
Overrated is a bit misleading. More like people generally know fuck all about what a tank does, how it does it and how it's supposed to function.
Well, technically wasn't the tank defeated but the strategy and who manned it.
I dont think it is about strategy,it really is deafeated.Remember that turkey ia nato part,it means it is a nato strategy that turkey is applying.
It was an accident of action by USA
Supplying weapons unintentionally or intentionally to ISIS.
When ISIS is on the verge of destruction due to the Syrian government attack.
The question is how do they easily get the latest weapons?
@@gerrbuck5217 Bull shit.... No thank works on strategy.... It works on tactics, which differes in every country....
@@DanishWiking41 an excuse for a losers!lol
@@gerrbuck5217 then is Turkey's fault applying the strategy.
Another lesson forgotten and then re-learned with blood: "All tank warfare since WWI demonstrates that tanks are vulnerable without ground troop support"...enemy forces can't be allowed to fire from point-blank range...
You are just giving excuses to a tank publicized as the best in peace perioud and when it have been took to war it failed complitly. Since whem did the germans built the best tanks? Not in WW2 and not after. french tank´s were better with worst commanders and there are clips of T90 being hit in the same war by the same enemy that didn´t burnt complitly and where the crew came safely prooving the supirior quality of russians tank´s.
i agree, didnt understand fully until commented.
@@removilmata5377 lmao you got no idea of reality. German tanks has been superior for always
@@removilmata5377 In many of the clips where leopards get destroyed, it is a sideshot. If you allow your tank to get sideshot, then thats your fault, no ferench, british american or russian tank can take atgms to the side.
@@removilmata5377 doubt it, i recall watching a clip of T-90 got hit and cooked off, the commander exited the tank as he burn to death
yesterday 2A6 was first destroyed in Ukraine by artyllery
Ukraine made new offensives now more leopard 2a6/2a4 got destroyed alongside the Bradley’s
Yes, they have an excellent reputation until they appear on the battlefield ......
Like most western equipment, the hype overshadowed everything
The reputation will be even better after Ukraine, and we'll see the same excuses.
No tank is indestructible. Even the Abrams and Merkava are able to be destroyed by using guerilla tactics.
Im sorry but the Leo is way more advancend than the Abrams
Depends on what you mean by advanced
@@derohnenamen3476 which Leopard? There are a lot of variants, like the 2a4, 2a6, 2a7 etc..m
Quite a Few M1s have been taken out already over the past15 years in iraq
@@derohnenamen3476 guerilla attack doesnt care about how much tech you put in that vulnerable steel box.
This kinda reminds me of how Russia sent a bunch of T-80s without infantry support into Grozny during the first Chechen war, only for the tanks to suffer heavy losses, and for the Russians to develop a low opinion of the combat effectiveness of the T-80.
Russian generals were still living in Soviet doctrines of warfare. They assumed a massive show of force, consisting of armour and conscripts would intimidate the chechens into compliance. RPG's from elevated positions made mincemeat out of the tanks. Once Chechen tactic was to use RPO-shmel rockets to disable the tanks optics so RPG teams could get into kill positions. The Russians had to resort to using the ZSU-23-4 and 2k22 to provide fire support for the armour because their guns could elevate to hit the Chechens, whereas the BMP and BTR guns lacked said elevation.
Exactly
Sounds like the typical "glorious leadership massively overestimates own combat capability while disregarding the complete tactical situation".
Could replace Turkey in the headlines with north korea or some other failed state and it wouldnt look out of place.
The most important factor was that the T-80s they sent had no ERA at all, even though new Kontakt-5 was available on T-80Us since the mid 80s and would have nullified the effectiveness of the RPGs.
@@greggemerer8251 Think those were present on only a few units placed on the frontline but only the more veteran crew had it and compared to the regular unit the had a small % of knocked out tanks.
Who is here after the Leppard 2A6 got destroyed in Ukraine.
😂😂 I am here these German tanks failed in every battle field.
Cope and shit in the streets
Polish analysts have said for a long time that the leopard 2 was very overhyped but procured it anyway
So the Turks took a tank designed for medium to long-range anti armored combat, sent it to urban warzone, the exact opposite to the intended environment for which it was designed, without propper equipment and with zero-to-none ground support.... and they wonder why it didn't win them the battle? Like.... wtf :D ? They are clearly not adressing the core reason of the defeat and I frankly don't know why should we take this fiasco as a case against the Leopard, rather than a case against a flawed Turkish military leadership which it clearly is.
Same case with T-80/T-72 in Chechnya. The Russian brought tanks into cities and many got destroyed. Instead of blaming bad tactics, people blame the tanks instead
i bet these crew where send there to die to dissolve of dissidents.
Asolutly your opinion
Yeah you're right. As a citizen I knew the Leo 2 A4 was not designed for asymmetrical warfare. And I knew this beast would suffer from guerrilla tactics. I didn't know our "intelligent" commanders knew nothing about it and send our brave tank crewmembers to their death. I was very disappointed (and still i am) in the ability of understanding how these weapons should be used. I atleast hoped they would support the Leo with infantry but no they just sent the Leo's all by themselves. And many died because of our great commanders superior of understanding. And now therye blaming German Panzers which they have nothing to do with it. Even the best tank that was designed for this asymmetrical war for example Merkava. It would just perform the same. Lack of crew training and our commanders who don't understand the weapons. I hope this mistake won't be repeated.
😂😂😂
They had an old Leopard 2A4 with a low-level armor package. They sent these tanks into an urban environment with little to no support for the tank forces, and expected to not get destroyed?
Plus an outdated Battle Manage System (BMS), which was strategically important in order to prevent ATGMs.
abrams did urban combat to and was battle tested
The fun thing is the German weapon industry did make money from both sides. The turks got the tanks and the Syrian Revolutionnist got rockets and launchers from the US which did sadly end up with the IS. But the shells of these rockets got build by the Germans again.
@@bennai2 apparently. the reason is Turkey is a jack@ss of a NATO member just because they heard the word KURD in Syria
Any tank used without tactics is going to be destroyed by the enemy ie Leopard used by Turkey in Syria and Abrams used by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. T90 version used in Syria did survive after getting hit by ATGM with no cook offs. In the hands of US army in Iraq, German army in Afghanistan their respective tanks had performed well.
Who is here after the Leopard 2 tanks get ambush and destroyed by Russians in zapariozye
🎉🎉🎉
🤚
Hahahaha and they were making fun of russian tanks destroyed in Ukraine 😂😂😂😂
The fact is that the Leopard 2 A4 is old and also not meant for counter terrorism. An IFV like the Puma or CV90 are supposed to be used for these types of scenario
Agreed
@Adil Achahbar talk about a run on sentence...
@Adil Achahbar are they fighting in open space or inside a city?
Ifvs are no more better suited to urban fighting than tanks. They have much less armor. A mbt would withstand an rpg 7 hit, no ifv will
Doesn't matter. ATGM would take them out just as well.
This video is kind of silly. Saying that Al-Bab was a loss even though the city was captured and they killed around a thousand IS militants is even sillier. There's a lot of context missing about the fighting, also Turkey never sent the tanks inside the city. Turkey also didn't use reactive armor because of fear that it would injure infantry near the tanks. None of the 10 tanks that were allegedly damaged were damaged inside the city.
-Most of them that were damaged were being used as artillery pieces behind infantry positions and had been moved to the hospital which had been occupied by friendly infantry. The hospital was later taken back by an offensive by IS where Turkey abandoned 3 Leopards and retreated from the hospital 2 of which had their tracks damaged by rocket/mortar fire and another had been disabled by a SVBIED.
-3 other leopards near the hospital had been hit by ATGM fire and disabled and then were subsequently hit by Turkish airstrikes to destroy them to avoid capture.
-Another leopard that was "confirmed" as destroyed shouldn't have been, it was just used in IS drone footage but it later it showed that it had moved from February 7th satellite images.
-2 more Leopards further west of the hospital were in entrenched positions firing at the southern part of Al-Bab when they were ambushed from the north west by IS militants with Konkurs launchers. 1 of these tanks were immediately destroyed after being hit in the rear turret where the ammunition was stored and the second tank was damaged and abandoned after being disabled by a second missile.
-5 tanks were recovered from the battlefield and eventually repaired. 3 were fully destroyed. theres no photos showing the other 2 tanks to make it 10 damaged/destroyed.
You can debate about the tactics blah blah blah but there are a lot of points on this video that are pretty wrong.
👍👍.
+ A4s have really bad turret armor.
@@turcarumimperator1395 that's not an argument. If you know the armor is bad, then don't get your tanks in situations in which you have to rely on it. It's like sending out helicopters to take out anti air weapons and later wondering why all got shot down. The weapon is only as good as the person that uses it. Use it in the wrong way and it's useless.
this is a good reply. by the way, the content of video was not rich. 8 mins for chit chat. I usually like this channels video, but this one was not good.
Thank you for claryfing these events. It makes much more sense to me now. I had worked with the turkish armed forces in the past and found them to be well trained and professional.
In other words, Turkey a joke.
Comment section loaded with tactical experts
Interesting how when Leopard 2 gets destroyed and the turret flies away it has reason, but when a russian T72 gets destroyed, they say the Tank is shit.
It's amazing how effective infantries can be. Shoulder launched heat seeking anti-air missiles + ATGMs, these are extremely low cost compare to other platforms, plus Toyota. Asymmetric warfare.
t o y o t a
I can just imagine your comment being the voice over in a Toyota commercial. LOL
The infantryman remain the lats 300 meter's fighter
Infantry are, and will remain, the basic and most important fighting unit. Airpower cannot capture a territory, infantry can. Tanks exist to support infantry. Artillery exists to support infantry. Infantry can be used to defeat all of the above if done right (aircraft being harder, but still possible).
@@SoloRenegade Exoskeleton and miniature guided munition/unmanned reconnaissance drones are gonna revolutionize infantry. Future is a scary place.
There’s a quote somewhere I read say: “The Main Battle Tank. Everyone can agree they are the most powerful, armoured beast in war. Making a soldier feared by the sight of one or a whole battalion of them. But, even a child with a rocket launcher can still destroy these beast if the leader of that country is an idiot, and the child is a smart desert rat.”
The Israeli called their Merkava tank “gods chariot” and considered it indestructible, then were shocked when in the first few days of their last invasion into souther Lebanon Hezbollah destroyed dozens of them with Iranian supplied anti tank missiles!
Bir Türk olarak söylüyorum ki haklısın
@@Mehmet-ik6pd nasıl haklı?
theory in the cold war said, that MBTs would live like 5mins in the battle
I created this quote back in 1638
There's nothing like having a well trained tank crew and commanders that know the circumstances of the coming battle; “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
"Stick them with the pointy end" - Sun Tzu probably
@@patbaker2199 "It was really a childrens book, but twitter culture made it seem relevant.." Also Sun Tzu.
Even better know the plan and have plans for when your plan goes down the toilet. One thing that makes military operations so difficult is that you have some smart people on the other side thinking of ways to screw up your plan.
@@colincampbell767 Of course announcing an attack 3 months in advance, like Ukraine, is a good way to get beaten too.
@@sashadala346 Yea they announced a 'spring offensive.' That's like Japan knowing that we were going to invade some islands of theirs somewhere in the Pacific.
Also remember what happened the last time they did this. It turned out to be a deception operation that was a cover for a real operation and that the deception itself was actually a real operation.
Leapord 2 tanks get destroyed by a rebel group armed with a few ATGMs. Same ones are now being sent to Ukraine against an opponent with a hell of a lot more than ATGMs. Yeah, this won’t end well
Your comment is very rare and the most foreboding. All of the overhype about the leos, bradleys and challengers is blinding people that dont realize what will happen to them without air support when the counter offensive starts. They're acting like Russia doesnt have aviation, ATGMs, their own tanks, drones, loitering munition drones, mine fields, a fck ton of artillery etc. This is the first time this equipment is going to go head to head with a on par opponent, not some hajis in the desert.
Leopard 2A4's outdated Battle Manage System (BMS) was also strategically important in order to not counter ATGMs.
Whut? Sir I was a leopard2A6 gunner and everything you say makes no sense at all.
@@tvanb8729 yeah but he said 2a4 not 2a6
@@konradgranqvist8131 also on the A4 the 'battle management system' has nothing to do with 'countering atgm's '
@@tvanb8729 It does, due to situational awareness and C4I field strategies, you CERTAINLY don't counter ATGMs by just armor.
@@tvanb8729 the 2A4 didn't even have a "Battle Management System" at all. Only the latest 2A7 version was finally upgraded with a digital Battle Management system.
There is no such thing as invincibility. Almost everything can be destroyed 🔥
I agree
If you can make it, you can break it.
So is the nature of war
Build, break, repeat
I would rather take my chances on foot rather than end up melted in a metal coffin, no tank is invincible.
Now we will see leopard 2 destroyed in Ukraine.
too many leopards destroyed in ukraine the leopard is not as powerful as it is exaggerated.
1 abandoned leopard is too much??
@@bloxybuster685920 confirmed leopards losses and there's also unknown amount of leopard destroyed by Russian missile strikes😂...
Stop lying
@@messier8379 well video russians show is just combine getting destroyed
Without reactive armor, every tank today is a coffin. Modern anti-tank weapons can get through any steel thickness today
Ever heard of composite armor or soft and hard-kill active protection systems ?
Useless when get hit from aboaf!
@@wolfgangemmerich7552 well then you should do some reading. 1 Top-Attack isn’t as effective as it might seem. 2. some Active Protection Systems do cover the top of the tank.
After reactive armor came out then atgms got tandem warheads to defeat it. Reactive armor is only effective against older warheads. Any modern atgm is fitted with tandem warheads
@@Truthbomb918 Newer ERA even has effect against tandem.
My first problem with the presentation comes at 1.32 , when the presenter starts talking about the ''reputation for nigh invincibility'' . No such reputation has ever existed in military circles and this ''myth of a myth'' counts somewhat as a ''straw man'' IMO
Overall, I really don't think this has much to do with the type or model of tank involved, rather this was more to do with the type and nature of the fighting.
Moreover , we are in danger of exaggerating one , relatively small and clearly bungled, engagement into something of greater significance than is really the case.
It's great click bait
Anyone tells you that their tank or in fact any tank is invincible, they have no clue what they are talking about.
Clearly the Turkish leadership believed in that myth lol
@@danielelombardo8196 there is so much missing from this story this is not how u can analyze problem. i am not even sure turkey cared about those tanks. they were in rush. and u can not really protect those tanks even with infantry unless it becomes total war
Except the US has used this propaganda many times
Its time to update your video “How Leopard 2 been decimated in Ukraine”. It looks that this tank is just a marketing hype with not big deal behind - every time its going into a real combat it bites the dust.
Russian tank destroyed in middle east: bad tank design
German tank destroyed in middle east: bad user
Russian tanks overextending without infantry or air support-
Literally the only valid critique of Russian tanks is their terrible reverse speed. The people whining about autoloaders do not understand that for one, the auto loader is positioned on a part of tank that is very unlikely to detonate upon first hit and provides a more reliable reload. As seen on this video, ALL western tanks have a hull based ammunition storage. They can also experience catastrophic cook offs. Though newest ammunition from Leopard uses a propellant less likely to be ignited outside the cannon breach and in Merkavas they seal all their shells into fire-proof casings the possibility of ammo detonation and cookoffs is still almost guaranteed if hit in the ammo rack.
TL;DR: Western tanks can explode and do turret pops too.
you need this for marketing purpose!!
Bad user in both cases, no doubt abot that... trying to turn a screw using a power hammer.
Still, the russian designs don't measure up - Abrams units rolled over them in Iraq without breaking a sweat.
@@slavicemperor8279 Not Abrams, it stores 80% of its ammunition in turret basket which is usually enough to let hull storage empty and Abrams is the only Western tank with blownout panel for hull storage. The other less mentioned factor is Western countries tend to use insensitive munition that is less prone to fire and explosion than Russian ones.
I love how he said the leopard 2 wasn’t made for urban combat despite the common doctrine of armored combat being in more open terrain and not cities since the creation of the mbt. Also you can’t say leopard 2 without calling out their generation, especially when referring to the 2A4, because it’s incredibly less advanced than the others.
The US Army proved that tanks are effective in urban environments. Of course that was carefully planned and the tanks given modifications for that purpose beforehand.
@@colincampbell767Out of all the pictures and videos of Abrams tanks destroyed by the enemy and not abandoned, It's safe to speculate that over three quarters of examples were destroyed in urban environments.
@@nicholasfielding9157 I suspect that you're surprised by the fact that if you send tanks into combat - you're going to lose some of them. BTW most of the tanks we lost were IED attacks. We also lost some early in the war when the auxiliary generators in the bustle racks caught fire during the 'Thunder Run' through downtown Baghdad during the invasion itself. But that was a peacetime economy measure that should have been removed before the tanks were sent into combat.
Yes I would bet that most of the Abrams tanks destroyed in Iraq were destroyed in urban combat. But once the initial invasion was complete and it turned into a counterinsurgency mission weren't the vast majority of combat operations urban combat ? It stands to reason if 80% of your missions are in one particular type of environment that most of your losses are going to be from that type of environment. The only way I would expect otherwise would be if the other combat environments were swamps, or some other terrain that heavy armor just doesn't work well in. Or possibly if forces got so focused on urban engagements that they stopped doing any effective training for other combat environments.
No tanks are made into urban warfare. It's SUICIDE to encounter well trained tank killers tram
Expensive equipments, tanks, armored vehicles: 0
ATGM's mounted on Toyota pick up: 1
Mobility and speed kills
@@enhancedutility266 And expertise... These yihadists are experts at using the ATGMs, while the turks didn't employ well trained crews to their Leopards...
@Baspat But it was a vietnam for us. Look at the last version of A4s
@@AdelantadoCL Russian saw that ISIS basicaly revived the tachanka concept, russia took note and revived the concept in their army too
Toyota killz😅
Now Russian army will destroy rest of Leopards .
Надо дедушку спросить как он их сжигал)
@@ezioias у России 193 национальностей как они могут быть нацистами?)
@@ezioias like ukronazi azov battalion and zelenska?
Excellent video. Studying warfare history every day, had never known about this engagment of Leopards. Thank you !
Just wanted point a few things out. Leo2's are actually part of the first army which is located in European part of Turkey, Syrian border and operations within Syrian border are responsibility of the third army. A couple of leos were sent over to assess their asymetric warfare capabilities and to gain some combat experience on them. A year after this losses hundreds of leo2's and M60's went through modernisation with the experience gained in Syria
Even the mighty M1A2 Abrams needed to be upgraded with the "TUSK" package (Tank Urban Survival Kit) if expected to engage in an urban environment.
This. The video is too biased.
What a load of bollocks! No-one (with some military insight), has labelled MBT’s as invincible! Nothing is!
There is no tank can stop the antitank missiles. If your enemy has got them, tank personel has no chance! The tank is M1, Leclerc, challenger or Leopard. Its not important
Our tank is invincibile its just got destroyed because it didn't face the prestine clean easy non harsh conditions that are expected in a war!
This is the kind of content we get when people with pleasant voice-overs try to talk about things that are clearly out of their depth.
So what happened? Do tell.
This is propaganda. :)))
Hello?
@@regregan5755 from what I've been hearing, they brought tanks into a scenario that is out of their element. Tanks are good at range, but not so good in urban environments, especially with minimal infantry support
While I agree that some of the more detailed points were not talked about (like how exactly these tanks got knocked out as well as some closer technical specifications), he actually made it quite clear that the two main reasons for this defeat were:
- That the Leopard 2A4 in itself was never designed for close-range urban combat, although I speculate it would have been relatively easy to prepare it for such an occasion by adding a the very least slat armor, another thing the Turks failed to do
- That the Turkish military leadership is terrible and that the soldier's morale was extremely low
Most of those 2A4 and "M60" tanks were out in semi open areas or in defilade, not inside the City. Also ATGMs were responsible for most kills.
Not one turkish Leo2A4 was penetrated by missiles nor RPGs, only when their crew were evacuated ISIS can fill them with explosives or detonate the not used own ammo.
@@semproniodensso3353 no they got penetrated by Kornet frontally and the ammo explodes
@@bastikolaski8111 On their videos, ISIS never shows themselves walking to the tanks. They only show the tanks burned or exploded.
Besides, there was not any death or wounded in Leo2 A4 crew, but in M60.
@@semproniodensso3353 in this one. But the Leos that get hit with Kornet(by Kurds) the turret fly away and the crew die
@@bastikolaski8111 ISIS didn´t show any picture nor video of any Leo2 crew dead. Corpses from M-60 were recovered by Turkish helo crews.
But...one never stops learning...Where can info about Leo2 crew deaths be seen?, thanks beforehand.
The turret flies away, but only AFTER the ISIS filled the abandoned tank with explosives and/or make explode the remaining 120mm ammo.
rpg 7 from 1980 can destroy this bullshit tank
Probably even a ww2 anti tank gun can destroy it too
@@hashteraksgage3281 yes bro
The Leopard II tank is a relic of the Cold War It doesn't fit in modern warfare
There is no such thing as "Worlds Most Powerful Tank", It's all about the crew,
Calm down, a good tank with a shit crew is as useless as a good crew with a shit tank
@@Fireway12 k
He said "one of" not "the best"
And there is no such thing as the 'world's best tank either.' Tank designs are optimized to the requirements and doctrine of the nation that designed/built them. The Leo II was built to support a defensive doctrine and the M1 was built to support an offensive doctrine. (The German forces defended and slowed the Soviets and the Americans counterattacked in order to destroy Soviet support and logistics units.)
@@Fireway12 lol, that is false
6:10 that one actually was not from an atgm shot, but an air-to-ground guided bomb. Turkish jets destroyed the damaged tank to prevent ISIS from capturing it.
Then why they didn’t destroy the one in 6:18
@@profinneupane6883 i don't know what happened on the field. Maybe those tanks were captured with the crew and airstrike was not an option, or maybe something else. One thing i know for sure, the destruction in 6:10 was not because of an atgm shot.
@@vedatozmenn
3 were shot by the Caliphate’s soldiers with ATGM, the other destroyed ones were abandoned and later jetstricked after the Kemalists retreated once they saw their Syrian mercenaries deserted their posts and they were alone face to face with the actual enemy.
@@swidswid8389 There are no Kemalist in the Turkish Army nowadays nor back then, Kemalist would whoop the asses of ISIS. Nonetheless, that Turkish army still butchered ISIS, this video doesn't say much about that for 'some' reason
Hmm now they're heading to Ukraine again and Kornet ATGM is waiting eagerly 👌
Next month in the Ukraine we will see the same results.
Several leopards were abandoned or destroyed in Zaporozhye as well as many Bradley’s
TLDR: Tanks were only disabled by ISIS, this destruction of Leo’s were done by Turkish Air Force on purpose so they wont be captured by ISIS, Leo’s were used with infantry support by due to bad weather (fog) and VBIED’s, tanks were sacrificed to protect the withdrawal of infantry.
I am a Turkish guy and know about this story so let me correct some crucial mistakes in the video and provide info for the people in the comments. The Leo’s lacked reactive armors and counter measures for ATGM’s that is correct and this is the number one fault of the MoD and the Armed Forces rather than personnel on the field so I give credit to the video on that. The missing issue is the “necessity”, how many modern MBT’s the Turkish Armed Forces has and how many theater of operations it has explains this necessity. Protection of borders, Northern Iraq, North Cyprus, other parts of the Syrian theater… so TAF were compelled to use whatever they had which means in other words TAF is not equipped well enough too. However, I challenge the claim of not using Leo’s in Urban Warfare. If Germany is invaded in an hypothetical sense, are we not going to see Berlin or Hamburg defended or retaken by Bundeswehr? Or even in an invasion of another country, how do we expect Bundeswehr to capture the cities only by infantry? The answer is also in the video but it is somehow now applied to the Turkish case, the answer is you will use your armored units wherever it is necessary including urban but with infantry support. TAF conducted Urban operations in 2015 at the south eastern regions of Turkey during the height of terrorist activity, Leo’s were there and the terrorist organization had plenty of ATGM’s too. Why didnt TAF observe such issues at that time then? This shows that both TAF and the personnel on the field is well informed of how to use these MBT’s, the real issue about the December 2016 clashes is about something else thats why.
The reports at the time indicated (later accounts of personnel on the field too) the clashes happened when this certain district was tried to be recaptured by the ISIS via the use of heavy foggy weather and infiltration tactics. Many VBIED (which is trucks full of explosives) were used, the fog and decrease in the range of sight caused many infantry casualties, they were withdrawn to sustain the situation and the tank were used to protect the withdrawal, the hospital (high ground and high building) in the district changed hand 16 times that day. So in this perspective, tanks sacrificed themselves to protect the infantry and in this regards they did a tremendous job, kudos to German engineers the tank is still strong even when it is armored to the 1980’s standards. The last and biggest mistake in the video that was not mentioned is: the Leo’s that were disabled in the field were ordered to be unmanned and later on Turkish Air Force targeted their OWN tanks so that ISIS would not be able to use them. Thats why the hulls are out and the tanks look devastated, the arsenal of ISIS or even Syrian Army lacks the weapons to devastate these machines that badly, it is only possible via the Fighters and Bombers. This tactic was used by the Americans and thought in NATO through them.
Ask me any questions as long as you act civilized and if you want to have sources to read I will provide you some Turkish personnel’s twitter accounts on what happened that day, or I will provide you some examples to compare like 2015 SDF attack in Bashika camp (ATGM vs M60T Sabra which had active protection systems) 2015 Urban operations, 2017-8-9 Syria Interventions by TAF’s with Leo’s.
Good feedback from you.
It is normal too, to have losses in a battle.
Thank you! Real info. Appreciate it a lot.
selam, i would like to have the turkish personnel's twitter account and discuss about it whith them. Could you write it down here please ? thank you
The title & information in the video is kinda clickbait.
I don't like appearing unappreciative but I don't see how this account explains what went wrong with Turkish armor in Syria. It does not explain why ATGM teams could freely move into firing positions undetected, why Turkish tanks were frequently caught (and destroyed) in blatantly exposed positions, why they appeared to be used as static guns instead of in more mobile roles, or where their seemingly missing infantry was.
Well with a bit of research you would know its the leopard 2a4 which atgms are really affective against the turret of the leo 2a4, the leopard 2a5-2a6 are basically imunes to atgm if it hits the turret, the hull on the front of the leopard 2a4 -2a6 can withstand 2-3 hits , while the leopard 2a7V is basically inmune from the front
The leopard 2a4 was defeated because it was outdated and almost all of the destroyed ones where hit on the turret not hull
No infantry support.
They fcked up do not try to blame the tank. If they had be trained the scouts would not let any ATGM teams coma any close to them
@@JackkDevil It is true about the infantry and scouts but you and I know and can't deny that the leopard 2a4 turret armor on the front cant withstand the ATGMs that it go git by , its a design flaw that got fix in the leopard 2at and up
Modern atgms will defeat the armor of any mbt. The leopard does not have armor that makes it immune to penetration
@@Truthbomb918 um the1a2 sep? The leopard 2a7v ? T80,t72 b3, K2 ?
I say imune but its basically the armor is really effective againt it
@@mrpotatoman_pr1554 well that is the whole point of armor, to provide protection but heat rounds are extremely effective and tanks don't have heavy armor all over the vehicle. Not really sure why u listed tank types
Every tank can be destroyed.
Now Germany is refusing to give Ukraine the tank😂
Germany is supplying Ukraine leapord II and leapords I's. For a while now too.
@@philchristmas4071 Bro that was one year ago😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
0:45 Yeah, they suffered such a great defeat, that they captured the city and are still inside the city and the surrpunding area. This video was obviously made just to show Turkey like a third world country that cannot even defeat ISIS and YPG/PYD in conventional warfare.
But you see that the Turkish army made a strategic error?
They could make it better.
They captured the city only with US and Russian help, so yes this is a defeat because Turkey was unable to take this city alone.
@@notlying5783 - This is true.
But Azerbaijan and the Turkey have attacked the people of Armenia. This is very weak if they attack someone who is nearly helpless, because they had only extremely old weapons. They killed this people basically to test their drone-program.
This is the reason why the could never be a member of the EU.
@@notlying5783 this is a lie. The us and Russia did not help. We did request help but help was not provided by Russia and USA. I know because I was there. We lost close to 100 troops but we took the city and we still there. Stop your bullshit about Russia and USA helping.
@@mikropower01 countries with extremely old weapons would not occupy other countries and Armenia is armed by Russia. they have plenty of armor and weapons. they even made money by trading Russian arms because they buy it from Russian army at domestic price. dont spread your ignorance.
Same excuse as T series of Russian did in Chechnya 1st.
Russia has the tools to sort out the leopards
Any tank can be destroyed
Nothing is Invincible
This video is a bit pointless
Buts hey it’s American 🤷♂️
There are some miss informations in the video.
Al bab was the second most important stronghold of isis, they defended it with their lives and kept reinforcing it during the siege.( a corridor was created for them in the south for the safe passage from Racca) but eventually they were defeated and Al bab was captured by Turkish forces on February/16/2017 about 5 months after operation started.
10 leopard tanks were destroyed during the operation and only 1 sabra tank was damaged.
Al bab defeat was a big blow to isis and it was their first major lost in Syria.
Turkish army still controls Al bab to this date.
the talk was about a battle, not about the war.
I would say kobanie was there first major loss
Lol they lost the battle bud, and 10 LP2s being destroyed by common terrorists, how are they going to stack up against a near peer enemy?
It wasnt the first major defeat of ISIS. That was the Russians and Syrians
@@BoleDaPoleby not going in without infantry and if acting with just tanks/APC staying in the open.. krakhead is fitting
Turkish Leo2's are actually first batch Leo2A0's from 1979 which were upgraded later to the 2A4 standard. They are currently upgrading them after incidents in Syria. And yes, there were strategical and operational problems.
How did you know those are from the first batch?, thanks.
@@semproniodensso3353 Open source information. Got them in early 2000's from German stocks
@@hobototalwar ALL the Leo2A4 were retrofitted in the 90s to "D Composite Armor".
And before that, all the A0 were retrofitted to A4 standard.
Doesn't matter lol
They can be fresh off the production lines with all the newest tech, they have fatal flaws that are now known and being exploited.
These are 1979 tanks being blown up by 1950s technology
@@perakojotgenije Exact, but not one of those Leo2 A4 was penetrated by missiles or RPG. After being abandoned by its crew, were filled with explosives.
The Leopard was never meant to be used as a stationary fortification. It is called "Leopard" because it is supposed to be a agile, mobile predator, constantly moving and changing position.
On top of that, it was designed for the "Combined Arms" Doctrine of combat, meaning a form of combat where infantry, tanks and artillery work closely together and the infantry protects the tanks from enemy anti tank weapons, while the tank protects the infantry from enemy tanks and other vehicles.
That is why the Germans never used ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), even though it was invented by a German engineer in the 60s.
With the German doctrine being that infantry and tanks work closely together, "shoulder to shoulder" so to say, having parts of the tanks armor explode would pose too much of a hazard for their own infantry.
So they refused to use ERA, even though it could have protected the tanks better.
The Turks just parked the Leopards on hills and allowed their enemies to just shoot missiles at them till they were dead. No tank has a chance when used wrongly like that.
Using a tank correctly requires a lot of skill, training, understanding and knowledge of the battlefield. There is another German doctrine that says that whenever possible, a tank commander should leave his tank before a battle and sneak forward to observe and explore the battlefield on foot, so he knows it before he starts an assault.
The best protection for a tank is to stay on the move, find the enemy first, shoot first and not get hit. Armor is just a last ditch safety measure that might or might not work, if everything else has failed.
You can watch old German tank crew training videos on TH-cam and you will notice that they don't even mention the tank's armor once in those videos. They act as if the tank had no armor. They teach the drivers to point the front of the tank towards the enemy, but not because there the armor is the strongest, but because that way the tank has the smallest silhouette and is hardest to see and to hit.
Relying on armor in battle is like relying on your car's seat belt and airbag to get you from A to B safely, not your driving skills.
No tank is a static bunker. Doesnt matter if you have abrams, leopards or russian mbt's... They will always get destroyed by anti tank weapons.
Great post, thanks.
Вот сегодня, на полях Южной Руси, и проверим встречный танковый бой! Сожженый "лео", привезём в Москву, и бросим у ворот американского посольства!
@@user-im8ct3wh5f Жалко даже думать, что танки еще имеют значение. Украинцам уже и "лео" не нужны. Вы уже проиграли эту войну и все еще мечтаете о победе.
@@TrangleC well said sir
People like to criticize russian mbt's for being easily destroyed by atgms but when it happens to abrams or leopards, they blame the crew and environment and never the tank. People need to realise that tanks arent immortal to anti tank weapons and dont care how much armor you have.
Ikr and i hate it when people do it
T90/T72 tank crew wont survive a direct hit from atgm missile because the shells are not stored in a separate compartment. thats the main difference. Tank crews are more important then the actual tank. Its also a reason why we see so many russian tanks popping off their turret when hit. You dont see this with western tanks.
@@Klote3241 instant death is better than slowly burning or bleeding to death
@@falcon6329 slowly burning means you have time to put out the flames. i.e bigger survival rate.
The destroyed tanks, like the one with the turret missing, was apparently hit by the Turkish Air force. I remember following the events and the ISIS fighters were bragging capturing the tanks as some of the crew was killed while resting outside the tank, a video from the same location later showed the tank in pieces.
You guys all speak like you were there and know everything.
Take it from someone who was actually there;
Euphrates shield was not a defeat, it simply took longer than anticipated. Attack on al-Bab was recalled not because it was a defeat, but because Turkish army realized ISIS was backed up by Syrian army, and did not want to risk advancing further. Casualties by then was at a 1/10 ratio and any higher was not acceptable. Army was recalled and a new play was devised. Just a year later, Turkish army broke through.
Leopards were misused. M60's weren't. Army expected al-Bab to have no heavy ordinance.
They had American ATGM missiles. Who they bought them from, is "mystery". After all, where can you get american made ATGM's? Certainly not America. USA certainly did not share that intelligence.
After a year's setback, Euphrates Shield was successful, then European countries started crying and branding it as a defeat, because Turkey gaining a foothold in Syria would damage their long term profits by having to share a slice of it with Turkey.
They Threatened to impose sanctions. Up to day, they are still trying to keep Turkey from out of the Syria.
Losing an unacceptable number of leopard 2A4's is definitely a humiliation. Main reason for that is, Turkey expected Leopards to perform similarly to M60's. Which they didn't. M60's were highly optimized for urban warfare. 2A4's weren't. Additionally, Germany has been refusing to sell the latest upgrade package on Leo 2's and modernize them.
This is why Turkey has been making it's own Altay tanks because once again Nato "Allies" refuse to cooperate. Just like the situation where USA refused to sell patriots to Turkey for 20 years so Turkey went to Russia to get a better and cheaper system.
It's not "this or that. They sucked so they lost bla bla." Everyone speaks, very little holds sway. I would ask you to share your sources, but you won't even read this comment fully, so.. Yeah.
Still it's the crew fult inexperienced new recruits
Turkey has nothing to share with Europe since It has a full time dictator and no democracy at all.
No wonders why western countries don't wanna sell the latest technology to a country that keeps denying a fucking genocide.
Sanguine I agree with you. No way Turkey lost to rag-tag Daesh . Mistakes always happen on the battlefield, that is how we learn and get better. I am tired of know-it-all's on social media. Usually they are politically motivated.
@@diama9958 Republic of Turkey has never committed genocide.
What committed genocide back then, was not republic of Turkey. It wasnt even the government, it was a bunch of people who called themselves "the young turks", they also tried to coup after the so called genocide, have been been trialed and exiled
@@sanguineaurora8765 load square bullets and roast the pork I say...
The TH-cam algorithm does it again lmao
This is the "game changer" that the West is bending over backwards to deliver to Ukraine???! 🤣
If you actually watched the video you’d know why it will succeed in ukraine
@@karmo1629well it didn't lol
@IzakSemrdoii Russia is desperately using the T55 so it can always be worse.
There is no such thing as indestructible MBT. Military tactics, situational awareness, and most important is the operator's ability and training. THANKS, MILITARY TV
Perhaps the political situation was a factor that reduced effectiveness of the troops in question. Units are usually not what they used to be after purges.
The success of a battle, is not only dependent on technology, or crew training. Strategy, tactics, battle field conditions, and weather also plays a major role.
Is that why NATO had to retreat from Afghanistan despite using these so called advanced tactics?
@@BoleDaPole hahaha
@@BoleDaPole Cope
Leopards, Abrams and Challengers are in for a fiery reception from Russian KORNET E anti tank, anti aircraft weapons . 🍿 and 🥤.
The biggest mistake of our army was to expect that there would be an army against it, as in Cyprus, in Syria, so they wanted to fight with heavy armored vehicles, but there were only militants firing RPG or ATCM in the region, which caused us to lose heavy armored vehicles, but the Leopard 2A4s we lost were destroyed by our air forces and prevented them from falling into the hands of the enemy.
In Russia we say: "Equipment in the hands of a savage - a pile of scrap metal"
@Storm Net, "Tovarisch" is the correct one Kamerad.
The same shit occasionally happens with saudi Abrams and western sources always determine this as an unskillfull usage of weaponry, but when the same shit happens with russian weapon systems in hands of unqualified middle east operators (syrians, lybians, iraqies etc.) they label this weapon as obsolete/outdated in relation to western counterparts.
Totally Agree
Any tank used without tactics is going to be destroyed by the enemy ie Leopard used by Turkey in Syria and Abrams used by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.T90 version used in Syria did survive after getting hit by ATGM with no cook offs. In the hands of US army in Iraq, German army in Afghanistan their respective tanks had performed well.
Mo
9 I0
SO
Technology doesn't replace good tactics. Combine arms will alway win the day.
The best tank is useless with the worst men...
The red coats had a few old centurions with massive mortars and heavily all round up armour in Gulf 1 for just this said eventually.
Every tank is good only when you use it according to what it is designed for while keeping its weaknesses in mind. Forget all these and the tank can be easily defeated, regardless whether its a leopard 2, abram or t90.
Without adequate support and prep work any tank is a coffin on tracks if the opponent has atgms of the same generation.
If these tanks started the fight in Ukraine, russians will simply use their anti tank missiles and drones instead of getting into full scale classic tank battle like kursk
Так сейчас танки против танков практически не воюют. Очень редкие битвы.
Почти все западные танки предназначены для борьбы с танками.
А Советские/ Российские более универсальные.
Башня в основном улетает из-за того, что в боекомплекте находились осколочно-фугасные снаряды. (У представленного на видео леопарда 2 в боекомплекте были осколочно-фугасные снаряды. После этого случая из боекомплекта убрали осколочно-фугасные снаряды, потомучно оторванные башни портят картинку)
Осколочно-фугасный снаряд наиболее эффективный для борьбы с пехотой и легкой бронетехников.
Танк без осколочно-фугасных снарядов почти бесполезен против пехоты.
А сейчас танки в основном воюют с пехотой, редко с легкой бронетехникой. А битв танка против танка меньше 1%.
What's intresting is that the Turkish M60 Tanks did amazingly well in the insuring battles. Make of this what you will.
If you learned about KV-1 in 1941, you would not made same kind of mistake. It is not hard to find dozen such examples. No tank is heavy enough to be indestructable.
Factors resulting to tank obliterated:
• Used without infantry support
• Obsolete equipment
• Overconfidence
• Bad tank crew
• Used in areas with not enough intel
i don't understand what can infantry support achieve there... modern ATGM has 2-3 km range...
Ask the developers and architects how dozen of tall buildings crumble down massively in Turkey during recent earthquake.
You don't just put an MBT in the middle of nowhere without soldiers who make an all-round fuse. A tank is not a lone fighter ... he tells the greatest effect in the connected fight
You don't put a tank - or your infantry - anyplace without a solid plan that you have at least rehearsed using a terrain model you had your junior enlisted make. (And usually you'll be impressed as to how accurate the model they made is. I always carried a plastic bag containing small toy tanks for use in rehearsals.
"The machines where sent to fight without proper cover of their own infantry" --- And that right there should have been the end of the video. No AFV unsupported is going to succeed in the mission. Was true the very first time tanks were used in combat and ended up having to retreat from the town they took after German infantry regrouped and started using armor piercing bullets on them and it's still true today.
Turkey always get the crap version of the weapons. Without reactive armor it was an easy game for them to take out the leopards with guided anti tank missiles. After this lesson, Turkey used the m60t sabra versions - they were modernised by Israel and got reactive armor. There are many videos of them surviving direct hits by ATM.
İşi doğru düzgün anlatan biri şükür
The Russians are going to make short of these.
The myth of Nato tank superiority is about to be dispelled
All the UN and German fanboys in the comments.
Tanks are extremely vulnerable without infantry and air cover, this has been known since the world wars. This is not a hardware failure.
Plus, as many people pointed out, where did ISIS get massive quantities of NATO made ATGMs? Even the taliban pointed out there's something weird with the group.
@@AnonD38 "We all know they were supported by the CIA . . ."
So a group we were actively hunting down was supported by the CIA. Did you think at all before you posted that?
@@AnonD38 Just add another layer of aluminum foil to your hat and everything will be just fine.
@@AnonD38 Let me guess - the voices in your head told you this?
@@AnonD38 sweet summer child. Is that a quote from the game of thrones?
@@AnonD38 You're the person who's making claims you can't back up. And rather stupid claims at that.
Don't matter if you got the best tank in the world if your manning them with imbeciles, any weapon system is only as good as the crew manning the weapon system.
Love watch Leopard fanboy get triggered by this video and seing they’re panzer becoming BBQ against Cold War tech
And Syria develop a homemade Anti-Tow System that make the Tow ATGM obsolet 😂😂
And today we listen in mainstream media that sending leopard tanks to Ukraine will be a game changer. It won't be and this video shows that
They sent an older variant of the tank, into an unfavourable terrain, in bad weather, with a green grew, supported by local militia who had never trained to fight alongside heavy armour. Only one of these factors are enough to lose an engagement. No doubt the political climate in Turkey also demanded a military defeat to humiliate the government in power at the time, which was against the military power of the country. So basically the generals in Turkey sought to orchestrate a defeat and blame it on the Erdoğan government to oust it in a coup. Basically this was never about the tank.
ALL the Leo2 were upgraded to A4 standard and in the 90s, all were upgraded to "D Composite Armor".
@@semproniodensso3353 The point is that they were badly used. Its like using a drill to hammer a nail. It doesn't matter how good the drill is, it will break.
@@TheScienceofnature Exact!!.
So not the tank's fault at all, not even it's design features or flaws. Literally solely due to poor battlefield tactics and management by the Turkish army entirely these handful of Leopard 2s got knocked out. Got it.
Lmao. Nice try.
fun fact no tank survive when anti tank missile comes this is the best example where the best tank gets destroyed easily while on the other hand people talk about the russian tank how it blows up now why all not talking about that i wounder
Challenger did.
@@awatt there are a lot of footage of Russian tank taking hit and still able fight. But everyone keep coping on the "superior" Nato/US equipment.
@@awatt Russian ERA armors are so effective that Ukraine starting to put on their own tank, even the Leopard
@@no-bodymr6419
Citation?
@@no-bodymr6419
Come back when you have one that survived seventy RPG hits. Just saying.
One of the best Channel, kudos team Military TV.
Al bab is captured and now in Turkey control. These tanks are vulnarable to Atgm as all tanks of cold war era which are not upgraded with self protection systems. Turkey is is modernizing its leopard fleet with new armor and self protection systems. In todays warfare, infantry is more predecious than tanks, nobody does not want to lose men. Infantry can no do anything againts atgms other than being target, since atgm attack can be launched from several km away. I find your analyses inadequate and biased.
Ah yes, sending tanks from the 80s and 90s into an asymmetrical fight against modern anti-tank weapons without support? What were they smoking. Best thing is, they actually blamed the tank and us Germans for it. Pure incompetence
retards at the government, this is turkey
That's what happens when NATO Europeans train.
In any war With Asian Armies likes of Russia, China and others we would smash your Entire Continent, not even your little Germany can withstand the war Psychology of this Part of the World.
Too many fancy toys and no real Generals nor the Patriotic Soldiers, leads to what happened in Afghanistan
I get you. I mean, there is a reason why the Panzergrenadiere are supposed to work in conjunction with the Bundeswehr Leopard 2s.
@@blackflagsofpakistantheeas9109
Assuming you are Pakistani, a nation like Italy could probably wipe your nation off the map, please work on your economy first. Out of all those nations only the Chinese are a real threat anymore, the Russians have a struggling economy now weaker per capita than even China.
it's as if Turkey didn't bother learning a single thing from all those years watching the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hello. Yes, you are right, those tanks should not have been used in the operation. But the al-bab operation was successful and Turkey controls that area.
-8
Without infantry tanks are very vulnerable in urban environments
The leopard tank was devoleped to fight rapid mobile warfare with mobile artillery and
Mechanised infantry in support .
tanks are vulnerable with infantry too today. they need active protection. infantry cant do much there. people still talking like its second world war and tanks are being burned my Molotov cocktails
At what poing did this piece of trash get all the hype it had. Its just overpriced garbage.
It was a very old Leopard with old armor. New armor comes from Leopard 2a5 and the one who was shot in Syria was a Leopard 2a4.
Der 2A4 ist doch schon total veraltet.. außerdem ist ein Panzer immer nur so gut wie die Crew die ihn bedient
Es ist als würde man einen Fahranfänger der bisher mit dem Moped unterwegs war in einen Formel1 wagen stecken