Leo2A4 destroyed

[DRG]

First off, the 2A4 is not really "modern" .......that tank was 5+ years old when SP2 was released 20 years ago

Two, they are fighting an enemy they cannot deal with in full on conventional warfare terms.... they cannot pacify the area with artillery first and it would appear they don't have enough infantry to keep them safe and it appears they underestimated ISIS ATGM capability.......and it's not a long stretch to see that there are propaganda points to be made when Russian ATGM take out what people are acting like are front line Western tanks...they aren't, they are over 1/4 century old. Nobody batted an eye when ISIS takes out a T-55 or T-72 with an ATGM ...Russian weapons on Russian equipment.... but are with a 25 year old Leo. That tank was designed to defend a 1980's style armoured assult..not wander around in the kind of battlefield in northern Syria and virtually everything is vulnerable to a side shot

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by DRG

First off, the 2A4 is not really "modern" .......that tank was 5+ years old when SP2 was released 20 years ago

Two, they are fighting an enemy they cannot deal with in full on conventional warfare terms.... they cannot pacify the area with artillery first and it would appear they don't have enough infantry to keep them safe and it appears they underestimated ISIS ATGM capability.......and it's not a long stretch to see that there are propaganda points to be made when Russian ATGM take out what people are acting like are front line Western tanks...they aren't, they are over 1/4 century old. Nobody batted an eye when ISIS takes out a T-55 or T-72 with an ATGM ...Russian weapons on Russian equipment.... but are with a 25 year old Leo. That tank was designed to defend a 1980's style armoured assult..not wander around in the kind of battlefield in northern Syria and virtually everything is vulnerable to a side shot

ok I am curious, which MBTs do you consider as modern? Aren't all of them at least 20 years in development in one way or another?

I hope you are not implying that my comment is part of some propaganda against western tanks, because you would be way off. way way way off.

Do you consider the (export versions or not) T-55 and T-72 as the same....I don't know....tier? as the Leopard 2A4? That would be an interesting way of seeing things.
But that's your prerogative.

Having lone tanks in towns sounds like suicide, but that is not always (ever?) the case. At least from photos I have seen, they appear to be on open ground. The question is, where was the protection and/or fire support of those units? (talking about the Turkish units in this case).
If any of the destroyed/captured tanks were inside towns etc, who sends them there in the first place and if for some reason they do, shouldn't they have far more support? Turkey has a large army, is it like the second largest in NATO? They surely can afford (units/men) to send more than 2-3 tanks at a time.

I don't know. The whole thing stinks. Either a setup or useless command.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by Wdll

Do you consider the (export versions or not) T-55 and T-72 as the same....I don't know....tier? as the Leopard 2A4? That would be an interesting way of seeing things.

Well the devil is in the details. No version of T55 is even close to a Leo-2A4, but there are several versions of the T72 that are comparable, or even superior to the Leo-2A4 (T-72B3M for example). The newest generation of Leos (Leo-2A5, Leo-2A6, not to mention the A7 version) are better than most T72s lying around*, but Turkey does not have any of these models.

Most "modern" tanks in service now are actually product of the 70ies. Some notable exceptions are the South Korean K2 or the brand new T-14 Armata.

*though technically, the T90 is in fact an upgraded T72.

[IronDuke99]

From what I have read and looked at the loss of these tanks looks down to poor tactics and training as much as anything else and, perhaps, command in terms of lack of support troops.

If you put enough vehicles in harms way, even MBT's some will get hit and some will get knocked out, especially given this version of the Leopard 2 is not as heavily protected as later versions.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Wdll

ok I am curious, which MBTs do you consider as modern? Aren't all of them at least 20 years in development in one way or another?

The 2A4's Turkey has were front line equipment in the early 90's and development has moved on which is why there have been 2A5's 2A6's and 2A7's since then

Originally Posted by Wdll

I hope you are not implying that my comment is part of some propaganda against western tanks, because you would be way off. way way way off.

No......... but certain arms manufacturers and nations might think putting an ATGM into them might be since most tanks destroyed in this conflict have been Russian in origin and the Leo has been long touted as a top line tank......it was ....in 1990 ....and is as a 2A7 , not so much as an early 90's vintage 2A4 in 2016 with no active or passive anti-ATGM countermeasures.

Originally Posted by Wdll

Do you consider the (export versions or not) T-55 and T-72 as the same....I don't know....tier? as the Leopard 2A4? That would be an interesting way of seeing things.
But that's your prerogative.

It makes little difference what the tank is when the side armour is less than the penetration of the missile hitting it....does it ? The Leo's crew would have a better chance of getting out but that's about all. The T-55 was wonderful....in 1960....not so much in 2016 against any ATGM