home » Spring » Analysis of the use of Leopard tanks in the Syrian war. The Germans themselves are shocked by the combat “successes” of their tank Turkish leopards 2a4 in Syria

Analysis of the use of Leopard tanks in the Syrian war. The Germans themselves are shocked by the combat “successes” of their tank Turkish leopards 2a4 in Syria

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, Turkey, 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 sabot projectiles of increased power have appeared in the line of ammunition.

- 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 home-made 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.

————————————————————
*By decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2014, the “Islamic State” movement was recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities in Russia are prohibited.

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 the "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 into 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 rocket 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 start 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 Turkey 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 using 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 aft 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/

Large translated material that analyzes the practice of the Turkish army using German Leopard 2A4TR tanks in the Syrian war.

Full analysis of the use of Leopard 2A4TR in Syria.

Introduction.

In this analysis, we are going to take a closer look at the performance of the Turkish Leopard 2A4TR tanks in Syria, so that we know about the vehicle itself, the doctrine and environment where it operated, and other things, thanks to a very detailed OSINT analysis. In 2005, Turkey purchased 298 used Leopard 2A4s from Germany, which later became known as Leopard 2A4TRs. The Turkish tanks have only minor differences compared to the original. Improved air filters have been added, which is very important for such dusty terrain as Syria.

Operation Euphrates Shield. Syria.

At the end of August 2016, Turkey launched an offensive along with rebel groups from the FSA in northern Syria, mainly against the Islamic State, but without taking its eyes off the Kurdish armed forces.
The M-60Ts were deployed first. For some time (following rumors of Leopard 2s near the Syrian border), on December 8, 2016, the first batch of Leopard 2A4TRs were spotted near the city of Al Baba firing their guns at ISIS*.

A train with Leopard 2A4s near the Turkish-Syrian border.

Theoretically, several armored and mechanized units were deployed on Syrian territory, which apparently numbered no more than two brigades, but deployment is not the same as being used in an offensive. Since FSA infantry and technicians usually led the attack, this led to to the hybrid military mixture of the Turkish army and FSA.

The first and main language for Syria is Arabic, while the Turks speak Turkish, they also use different alphabets, so communication between allies was not very good, and this is very important if you want to take advantage of the firepower that tanks and Turkish artillery. There was also a lack of training and morale among the FSA because the group was largely made up of men recruited from refugee camps in Turkey with low a fickle morale.

Last but not least, like Russia or the US did in Syria, Turkish troops do not use their regular units as the main strike force. They remain in reserve and only some auxiliary units are sent to the front. This is important. Because it means that they are far from using their full offensive potential on the battlefield.
Let's see what Heinz Guderian, the father of the so-called Blirzkrieg, can tell us about armored forces from his book Achtung-Panzer! First published in Germany in 1937.

“This force [in relation to armored troops and tanks] which actually has the greatest offensive force and has the right to use this force according to its own rules, and therefore wherever it is used, it will be the main force, and the rest will depend on them"

The tank is usually the centerpiece of ground warfare, but to fully utilize its firepower, mobility and protection, it must have accompanying forces to achieve all the capabilities it offers.

When tanks are poorly escorted and controlled, they become very vulnerable, which is why ISIS managed to defeat a small Turkish force with Leopard 2s and capture its cats.

If a high-intensity campaign were to be carried out against ISIS, the mechanized or armored forces would consist of the following supporting elements: mechanized infantry, engineers, self-propelled artillery, air support, all of which would be used simultaneously, in large numbers and at key points in the ISIS defenses * to break their lines of defense and continue advancing, pursuing their rearguard to Raqqa, but this did not happen,
Why?
Because, as we said, Turkey behaves just like Russia or the US, and they simply don't want an intense and big war with serious losses, so they prefer to use their tanks as mere support for the FSA, and do not use them in attack, to penetrate deep into ISIS lines, together with the combined armed forces.

This is the main reason for the loss of Leopard 2A4s in Syria, they are not used as tanks, they are just large mobile guns to support the rebels, for this purpose, a cheap T-55, captured from SAA warehouses, will technically be almost as useful as an expensive Leopard 2 .

Using a frontline tank like the Leopard 2A4 to provide fire support at range is a clear underutilization of a very powerful tool.

What else did Heinz Guderian tell us 80 years ago? Let's get a look:

“The claimed rights lead to the following tactical needs:

1.Surprise

2.Mass application

3.Suitable terrain

Surprise was not achieved in Al-Bab, in fact, the opposite was true, Turkish slowness allowed the load of active fighting to be transferred to the FSA and the slow advance of the Turkish Armed Forces did not cause any surprise to anyone.
Mass use was not achieved, tanks were used in small units, usually only platoons of three or four tanks, and sometimes even individually.
Suitable terrain, the only thing that did not depend on the Turkish high command, was provided by the very nature of the Syrian terrain with many plains, mountains, deserts and little snow in winter.
Master Guderian said: "High speed of armored attack is necessary to determine the results of the battle"
Most of the basic rules for the use of armored forces were not applied by the Turkish military, probably due to political pressure to avoid casualties, and because the head of the operation, Lieutenant General Zekai Aksakalli of the Northern Fleet, was not very familiar with the use of armored forces.

the Lieutenant general Zekai Aksakallı is from SF

So what was the only way the Turks could use the Leopard 2A4TR in Syria?

Simply arrive at a position facing the area captured by ISIS* and provide fire support with the help of a liaison officer between the FSA and tanks or simply the steel monsters' own capabilities.
The lack of ground reconnaissance and communication with the insurgents ultimately led to the Leopard 2A4 crews making poor decisions and placing their tanks in vulnerable positions that were overlooked by ISIS and its experienced ATGM-equipped tank hunter units that eventually were able to knock out MBTs on the open flanks.

Although we'll take a closer look at protection in the section "Where Does a Cat Have Thick Fur?" First of all, we want to point out a few things.
Most of the missiles that hit the Leopard 2 were probably 9M113 Konkurs, which attacked it from the flanks. Anyone with some knowledge on the subject knows that there is no modern MBT capable of countering these missiles from the sides, unless They do not have ERA or mounted armor and/or cage armor. In addition, the German designers relied on the insulation of most of the most sensitive components, which could lead to a catastrophic explosion if ruptured, especially with respect to fuel and ammunition.

If a tank such as a Leopard 2A4 is hit in the side by an ATGM, damage is inevitable at the point of impact but is limited due to automatic fire suppression systems, heavily protected ammunition boxes, fireproof items, crew clothing, etc. At the moment we can say that the Leopard 2A4 resisted these dire consequences well, taking into account that severe damage is inevitable in most cases.

Detailed information about Leopard 2s in Syria.

Before being sent to the front, most Leopard 2s were painted with the new desert camouflage scheme, but a few Leopard 2s retained their old green scheme, as we can see in the images.

Green Leopard 2A4s, somewhere in Syria.

Generally Syria is a dry country, but in the north there is snow and very low temperatures during the coldest months of winter, but this is not a problem for the Leopard 2, which is very well suited to low temperatures.

Syria is not as hot as some might expect.
.
Also the Leopard 2 can be supplied with MG-1 or MG-3 7.62mm machine guns on the turret in front of the commander's hatch, these MGs tend to use the AA scope, but in this case this would not make sense for Turkish crews and so they would probably use regular sights. This machine gun is especially famous for its deadly rate of fire of about 1,200 bullets per minute. However, the machine gun on the turret is very rare. We only saw a few tanks with turrets; most of the MGs had been removed.

.
MG-1/3 machine gun covered with a plastic case on the turret.

Regarding the ammunition used, as far as we were free to inspect the tanks, we saw M325 HEAT-MP-T (Multi-Purpose Tracer) rounds along with an advanced Turkish (MKEK) copy of the German KE DM-43 or DM-53 rounds and the Israeli KFS APFSDS rounds M322 or M328.

KE or APFSDS - Kinetic Energy (only against very well defended targets)

HEAT - High explosive anti-tank (multi-purpose)

HE - High explosion (only against lightly armored targets) (high explosive)

shot KFS APFSDS M322

M325 HEAT shot

shot Turkish copy of DM-43s/DM-53

Theoretically, the DM-43 or DM-53 from the last group of images does not exactly match the German made shot, in our opinion, it is a DM-43 or DM-53 shot made by MKEK, because we found a 120 mm APFSDS -T KE shot made by MKEK, as we can see in the image below, but these shots are not displayed on the MKEK webpage.

Under the M325 we see containers for 120mm APFSDS-T rounds made by MKEK, this caliber is only for tanks, and the APFSDS type is only for Kinnetical Energy (KE) rounds.

The use of HE and HEAT rounds should be the rule in Syria as they are best suited for use against the enemy in field fortifications or behind walls, and HEAT can even destroy armored vehicles that ISIS* may occasionally deploy, such as BMP-1s or some legacy tanks.

KE APFSDS are armor-piercing rounds designed to penetrate the armor of modern tanks such as the T-72 or T-90, and they are not effective against buildings, equipment or lightly armored vehicles, such as we saw during Desert Storm in 1991. that M829 or M829A1 KE rounds were capable of penetrating both sides of a T-72 and leaving the tank without destroying anything. If they can pass through the entire vehicle and exit without any consequences, why use them in Syria?

As we all know, ISIS widely uses SVBIEDs (suicide mobile) mounted on armored civilian vehicles moving at high speed, they are quite destructive and difficult to hit targets, HEAT and HE rounds can hit VBIEDs but their trajectories are highly parabolic due to for their lower muzzle velocity compared to KE rounds, which are approximately 1,600 m/s compared to approximately 1,000 m/s for HEAT or HE.
This is important for several reasons, for example, the DM-53 (KE) is much faster than the M325 (HEAT), and therefore it has a much flatter and flatter trajectory, which results in a higher level of accuracy and rate of fire. Both characteristics are very important for combating VBIED.

But it may be objected that, as I said, before this, as a rule, they penetrate the armor and leave the vehicle without causing any significant damage, and this is true,
But we must remember that VBIEDs are loaded with a huge amount of explosives and therefore the likelihood of a projectile hitting one of them during penetration is very high.
In most world doctrines, including Turkish, tank platoons consist of 4 tanks with one lead tank, however sometimes some special forces use platoons of three tanks each, this is for example more typical for expeditionary forces such as marines or marine units .

Strangely, at some point we noticed that the Turkish tank units seemed to be using 3 tanks each. Although this is reasonable because you do not need to use many vehicles to fight ISIS * and need to flexibly use the transport vehicles you have means, But in any case we are not sure of this.

Leopard 2A4TR on the battlefield.

Almost all the fighting in which Leopard 2 took part was associated with the battle for the city of Al-Bab and, especially, the clashes for the hospital located in the west of the city.

Al-Bab. red sign - hospital.

Evacuation and repair vehicles.
The M88 series vehicles are used to repair and replace damaged parts of combat vehicles, evacuate stuck and damaged equipment. The main TER vehicle in the Turkish army is the M88A1, originally based on the M-48 / M-60 power plants, the A1 is an improved version with a more powerful engine.

We don't know the number of M88A1s deployed, but we are sure they didn't or couldn't do their job. We could see Leopard 2A4s destroyed or heavily damaged. They were not evacuated after being hit, indicating poor coordination or (possibly) ISIS pressure in the area.

M88A1 in Syria.

So far we have been able to verify the existence of 43 Leopard 2A4TRs deployed in Syria through two batches: the first of these consisted of 18 tanks that were spotted on 8/12/2016, and the second batch included 25 tanks that were sent on 10/12 /2016 these figures indicate a deployed force equivalent to an armored brigade, and as Christian Triebert wrote, published in Bellingcat, the license plates of the Leopard 2 corresponded to the 2nd Armored Brigade.

How do they usually work?

They usually fire from hastily constructed field fortifications, originally intended for infantry and built with dirt walls. They are not specifically designed for tanks, as they would otherwise have much higher walls covering their sides and fronts. If they had enough time and resources, they could and would dig firing positions for tanks that would protect them much more than those walls that were made of soil.

We did not see a well dug-in firing position for tanks, which indicates low participation and coordination with engineering units, which could have built much better positions, which ultimately could have saved many vehicles and crews.

Take a look at the images above and simply compare the levels of protection offered by the fortifications provided at both tank firing positions, top photo of an M1 Abrams during target practice, bottom photo of a Leopard 2A4TR in Syria.

Leopard 2s typically remain behind dirt walls and provide fire support from ISIS positions with main cannons and coaxial machine guns, however we do not know their level of coordination with the FSA.
We also believe that, in addition to the tank's own capabilities, the Turkish forces use Cobra OTOKAR light wheeled vehicles to support and control the fire of combat units during operations, this method is also used in other armies, such as the French AMX-56s of the VBL type (Véhicule Blindé Léger) is used for the same purpose.

Cobra OTOKAR in Syria.

It is also interesting to note that there are many photographs of Turkish soldiers with relatively rare and specialized weapons such as the AIAW sniper rifle, such rifles are only used by specialized sniper units, (SFs in particular have this type of weapon,) you would not usually expect to see them can be used with armored units, this gives us an idea of how hybrid warfare is out there,
where Turkish Leopard 2 operate.

Since Leopard 2s usually operate as simple fire support assets rather than as part of a purely offensive and advancing force, they (probably) do not need to be supported by artillery fire themselves, therefore, artillery and mainly the 155mm SPH T-155 do not operate in clearing action terrain in front of tanks for previously identified targets, this is always a disadvantage.

Under normal conditions, the 155mm SPH T-155 Firtina would operate in close coordination with the Leopard 2A4s.

However, we are still talking about a low-intensity operation, and therefore deployed tanks do not operate in a normal way. They are used, for example, during urban battles, that is, tank units are dispersed and control is decentralized to a certain extent, So when tanks are needed in some area , they(the army) don't deploy them even in one division, but only one or two tanks to provide fire support, this is because ISIS* has so few deployed troops that you don't need the whole squad to participate in the fire support phase .

Under normal conditions, Turkish tank units will coordinate their actions with aircraft, helicopters, artillery and other means. In Syria, they coordinate with small mechanized infantry units mounted on ACV-15s (a highly improved Turkish version of the M-113 APC), which in our view typically act as safety and security elements for small tanks.

In most cases, the true driving force of the JEF is the FSA units supported by tanks and artillery (provided by the SF) to support the FSA and using recognition technology. The air force appears to be operating both against predetermined targets and providing close air support.

But the main problem is that the FSA, which is theoretically considered to be the lead infantry, has a different language (Arabic), they have no experience, low morale and low training, and lastly, they are mostly light infantry. Without their own heavy weapons, which, in the end, and despite the support of Turkish heavy weapons, does not compensate for their shortcomings.

In addition, the high level of professionalism possessed by the ISIS* tank hunter units in Al Bab cannot be underestimated.
This is a “surprise” for TA that has never been seen before in Syria or Iraq.
Simultaneous double ATGM strikes and good coordination to attack from different directions, as well as good knowledge, allowed them to take advantage of some advantages and carry out small but successful attacks.

“Where does a cat have the thickest fur?”

While some claim that the tanks were hit by TOW-2A ATGMs, we consider this unlikely, primarily because only a few TOWs ended up in ISIS* hands throughout the war, and secondly because ISIS* There are many Soviet/Russian ATGMs. Some of them were captured and others were bought by rebel groups.

These ATGMs are mainly 9M111 Fagot, 9M113 Konkurs, 9M133 Kornet and 9M115 Metis, the latter depending on the 9M115 or 9M115-1 variant has an average range of 1 to 1.5 km, also they all work with HEAT warheads and the less powerful is the 9M111 with Penetration capability of approximately 400 mm RHA.
Theoretically, the frontal armor of the Leopard-2A4 would withstand the Fagots, could withstand the Metis and Konkurs, and would not withstand the Kornet.
*So in the text: "In theory the frontal armor of the Leopard 2A4 would resist the Fagot, could resist the Metis and the Konkurs and would not resist the Kornet."

However, the sides are a different story. If, on the front of the sides of the Leopard 2A4 on the sides, where the heavy skirts are located (sideskirts), we could be talking about 40% armor in the front, while other parts on the sides are likely to be even less.

Look how thin the side armor is.

We estimate that the chassis armor will be between 3 and 8cm thick of regular steel depending on where we are talking about, while at the bottom of the chassis we have to add wheels and a light skirt acting as spaced armor, which adds known protection. But still, the most open parts are the sides of the tower and the high part of the chassis, because there is no additional armor on either side.

To the left of the soldier we can appreciate the heavy sideskirts of the first generation, which were later replaced in the Leopard 2A5 version.

However, the Leopard 2s has developed measures to protect critical flammable or explosive components inside the tank, as well as the overall ammunition, which is protected, and even each shot has its own clad container. The tank has two main ammunition racks, the first with 27 rounds, located in the front of the chassis at gunner's height, which is very well protected, but it can be vulnerable to mines that land on low glacis or under the hull. Another rack is located on the left side of the turret, and it has 15 ready-to-use rounds that , are certainly more vulnerable, especially to attacks on the sides of the tower.

Ammunition storage on Leopard 2A4

Needless to say, each ATGM could penetrate the side of the Leopard almost anywhere, and after penetration, only protective measures and luck, somehow provided by the designers, would allow the tank and its crew to survive. It should also be said that usually only one penetration is not capable of destroying a tank, but rather causes it heavy but recoverable damage. Also severe injuries and even deaths for the crew.
In the case of Syria, all recorded penetrations were on the right side of the Leopard 2, which leads to one of the worst situations. Also, some tanks were captured and completely destroyed by ISIS or Turkish air strikes.

Let's look at the image below, it shows a completely destroyed Leopard 2A4. It is completely destroyed, but let's take a closer look at the front part of the chassis, because this part is the one that suffered more. For example, the combat rack of the turret was also damaged, but this did not mean that the turret was broken into pieces, but the chassis was. In our opinion, this evidence suggests that such damage could be caused by a missile from an aircraft, in the case of the Turkish Air Force, it was probably a Maverick AGM-65. Because the frontal landing gear is very difficult to destroy, and as we see in this case it is destroyed.

The damage to the frontal area of the chassis is incredibly high considering that this is the most armored part of the MBT.

There is also an ISIS* video of several Leopard 2s captured in Turkish positions, apparently all of them were well preserved, and therefore photos could have been taken from all sides of the Leopard 2. After this, the captured tanks were destroyed by ISIS* or Turkish troops. After all, these are too complex and unknown vehicles for ISIS to handle, and they are as useless as those M1 Abrams captured in Iraq that were later destroyed.

Unfortunately we were unable to establish a link between any ISIS videos of ATGM attacks and other photographs of tanks, with the exception of the next group of images where we can see an attack on two Leopard 2A4s, thanks to Christiana Triberta for her help.

In this case, (ATGM on the tank) the Soviet 9M111, 9M113 or 9M133 were probably used.
In a ground-protected position, two Leopard 2s and one T-155 SPH were attacked. The defense consisted of a dirt wall divided into two spaces at the front, where both vehicles were positioned to fire (from where the attack was expected) and a wall that did not cover the higher part of the chassis.

You can see the post-hit effects in this image.

Second tank that was hit: Here we can evaluate the effects of the penetration.

The first tank to be hit: in this case we can see a hole in the turret, the energy of the explosion rose up in the area breaking through 120 mm ammunition.

While both tanks were brutally impacted, the second one was completely burned, judging by the angle for the ATGM, we can clearly see that the most exposed part of this tank was the rear of the turret, where the ready-to-use 120mm shells were placed. The impact resulted in catastrophic consequences (explosion of shots) which probably led to the death of some crew members.

The first tank resisted the impact much better because (as we can see in the image) the turrets and tank chassis were very damaged, the missile pierced the heavy sideskirts on the chassis, which may have helped reduce the power of the anti-tank charge. It hit the inside of the tank, internal damage to the tank and injuries to the crew were possible, but the crew was still able to turn the turret back. Although this blow was close to blowing up the main storage in the 120 mm rack, it seemed to be lucky. Which shows why the German designers added these heavy sideskirts on the flanks to protect the side where a powerful hit could eventually reach the main 120mm round storage area.

It is also interesting to note that in the image above we can see the top of the turret being opened up where the 120mm ammunition rounds are located, theoretically this part of the tank was designed by engineers to direct the explosion of shells outside the tank, so it is very typical to see this part of the turret Leopard 2 turned outward in cases of penetration.

In the sequential images of ATGM 1 and ATGM 1.2 we can see the impact of a mid-range charge (ATGM) type 9M115-2 Metis-M with high ability to penetrate the side of the Leopard 2, again we see a very weak point on the tank from a powerful charge such as Metis-M .

The better frontal armor of the Leopard 2A4s is not an advantage over the T-72 in similar attacks.
T-72s have about 80mm of steel on the sides, probably almost the same as the Leopard 2.
We also noticed that catastrophic kills are rare in German tanks.

Some tanks have been destroyed by IEDs or mines, the fact is that, generally, anti-personnel mines are designed to stop a tank by destroying the tracks, but not to completely destroy them, however, improvised explosive devices, which are "improvised" and can be produced in varying quantities explosives can be very powerful, especially if conventional 152mm or 155mm artillery rounds are used.
In the next image we see a completely destroyed tank, the license plate of which was "195/526" and according to some sources, it was blown up by an IED or a mine.

If we look closely at a table from an unknown source, which turned out to be very accurate, tanks that suffered heavy damage had the note "Ağır hasarli" (heavy damage), while those that suffered very light damage did not have any indication. Let's take this table and compare it with the tanks in the videos released by ISIS*.

Tank "195 | 526" appeared on the list as "without any serious damage", which in theory suggests it was affected by an IED or mine.
So why do the images show the exact opposite?

In our opinion, this is part of ISIS propaganda. The turret does not appear to have been damaged by the explosion of its 120mm ammunition, but rather suffered a huge explosion after the ammunition was removed. What explains the absence of burning traces from the explosion and what if the terrorists would have placed explosives under the bottom of the tank in the area of the main ammunition storage area. After all, it is very likely that this tank was damaged by a mine and ISIS was able to rob and then plant explosives and detonate it to prevent Turkish forces from recovering the Leopard.

For example, the Leopard 2, which is in the photo below, looks like it ran over an AT mine or IED, because the right track is destroyed, and the other is in good condition. Also, the explosion did not cause the destruction of the tank, since it (the explosion) could not get to the main shell racks, this coincides with the description given about tank number 195/541.

Also the next tank (below in the photo) looks like number 195 / 537. Because the description said that it was “under the wall”.

Social media claims that the tank was loaded with bombs and a shot from an M82A1 Barrett caused its destruction.

It is interesting that almost 100% of mine explosions, hits from RPGs and ATGMs in Leopard 2 occurred on the right side of the tanks, this is due to the fact that ISIS positions were located in Al-Bab, and Turkish tanks were approaching from the west.
Approximately two kilometers to the south, ISIS positions were located within the firing range of long-range ATGMs at a distance of 2 km, from the territory held by the FSA-Turkish side. The tank hunters could strike at the Leopard-2, which were targeting Al -Baba, opening her right sides to defeat the ATGM.
the following image explains it

Better coordination with the FSA or even mixing them with mechanized TA units will result in higher levels of effectiveness on the battlefield and will also help strengthen the FSA force.

Increase coordination with engineers to conduct recovery missions and create more secure firing positions for tanks, which could help prevent Turkish ISIS AT tanks from being detected and attacked. At the same time, Leopard 2 must use its mobility more effectively and not remain in one place after several shots, it is important to speed up the fire support processes to reduce the detection, attack and shooting of ISIS* AT against Turkish armored vehicles.

Repair and evacuation efforts are very important because some of the tanks captured by ISIS were taken because they had minor mobility problems that could have been resolved by repairing them or evacuating them from the front before ISIS could take that position. , as well as some destroyed tanks, which also had to be removed from the battlefield, were abandoned and remained in the same places even a month after their destruction.

Organization of self-destructive self-destruction) air units 24/7 ready to destroy enemy tanks captured by ISIS* might be a good idea to prevent them from using these tanks as propaganda or giving us nasty surprises in the future.

Additionally, ISIS infantry operations capable of occupying small positions that housed Leopard 2A4TRs demonstrate some uncertainty regarding the mechanized infantry security element of the ACV-15. Which was to establish a strong perimeter around the tanks to prevent ISIS infiltration and attacks that occur in hybrid warfare.

Additionally, allocate more M88A1 recovery vehicles to frontline units to provide them with a more effective means of recovering rapid reaction force armored units needed for counterattacks, supported by helicopters, against possible ISIS or similar raids.

All of the above measures are very cheap, however some technologies can be used to directly protect the Leopard 2 as we see it.

The Turkish company ASELSAN has designed a very interesting prototype based on the Leopard 2A4 called Leopard 2 NG (Next Generation), which among other things adds a lot of modular armor and lattice armor on the sides.

While the Leopard 2A4 is probably reasonably protected against most frontal threats, the sides are a different story and in our opinion adding Leopard 2 NG armor to the sides and some ERAs could make them well protected against ISIS* threats, however unlikely , so that without ERA even Leopard 2 NG can stop Konkurs or even Kornet from the flanks. Along with these measures, developing new, better protected ammo racks, even if they are reduced a little, can be a great idea. Finally adding an LWR or similar system to warn the team of attacks from enemy ATGMs could help save a lot of tanks and lives.

translation from English

The other large-scale attack by Turkish troops on El-Bab, an extremely fortified stronghold of militants of the radical Islamist group "Islamic State"* (IS, ISIS - editor's note), located in northern Syria, which ended the other day, ended in another, natural failure. During yesterday's attempt to occupy the city outskirts, the Turkish armed forces lost about 50 people, several light armored vehicles and once again hurt the pride of their own armored units - the Leopard-2 main battle tanks.

Today, the militants of the Caliphate reported on two more new tanks destroyed on January 20, 2017. They confirmed their words with a number of photographs, once again dispelling the notorious myth about the invulnerability of German armored vehicles.

One of the photographs of Turkish Leopards recently destroyed near El-Bab. Photo source: bmpd.livejournal.com

The reason for the destruction of the damaged tanks caught in the frame turned out to be a banal detonation of ammunition. Because of it, the Leopards were literally gutted from the inside, the blast wave tearing off the armored vehicles' turrets, a massive frontal part and part of the side. All this happened despite the fact that, according to the designers, German tanks are perfectly protected from such, critical for the crew, detonation of shells by removing the ammunition into the outboard space located in the aft niche of the turret.

In theory, when the shells placed in it ignite, the ejector panel covering the shell niche is fired off, and the tank crew calmly waits for the ammunition to burn out behind a special armor curtain that separates the interior of the armored vehicle from the ammunition. But in practice everything is completely different. Turkish Leopards, under fire from militants in Syria, receive monstrous damage and literally fly into pieces. But for what reason?

The main drawback of the German Leopards in service with the Turkish army is that not all of the ammunition is carried into the side compartment, but only 15 unitary shots. The remaining 27 shells are located in the tank’s hull, to the left of the driver. That is, if an anti-tank missile successfully hits the additional ammunition stowage, the Leopard has every chance of instantly becoming a mass grave for its crew. Which is wonderful and is confirmed by recent footage taken near El-Bab.

The layout of the German tank "Leopard-2", which clearly indicates the placement of part of the ammunition in the fighting compartment of the tank. Photo source: foto-transporta.ru

As can be seen from the published photograph, the destruction of one of the Leopards was caused by damage to the ammunition located on the left side of the hull. The ignition of the shells in the fighting compartment naturally ended with their detonation, which tore out not only the turret, but also, as mentioned above, the frontal part, as well as part of the side. And, if the turret torn off during the explosion of ammunition looks, no matter how strange it may sound, quite natural, then the flying off forehead of the Leopard makes you think about a lot of things.

The tank turret, as one of the heaviest elements of an armored vehicle, is mainly supported by the hull due to its mass. Therefore, it is not surprising that when shells detonate inside the tank, it is the turret that is torn from its place. Similar damage, for example, occurred during the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Syria on the T-64 and T-72 tanks, in which a significant part of the ammunition is also located inside the fighting compartment. However, Soviet vehicles were not torn apart when ammunition detonated. Yes, the T-64 and T-72 lost their turrets, but their massive frontal armored part, which, according to the design of any modern tank, must be extremely rigidly attached to the hull, was not torn off by the explosion. Unlike the Turkish tanks destroyed near El-Bab.

"Leopard" with a torn off frontal part as a result of an ammunition explosion. Photo source: bmpd.livejournal.com

In my own words, the strength of the tank hull cannot withstand the internal explosion of a couple or two kilograms of explosives. All this can only mean one thing - the German Leopards turned out to be designed with serious errors. This means that armored vehicles, which are positioned by some military experts as the best in the world, are far from being so flawless, at least in terms of combat survivability. Which, however, has already been confirmed by the previous combat use of Leopards near El-Bab. German tanks managed to burn out completely due to the ignition of ammunition in the side niche, even with the normal operation of the ejector panel.

One of the Turkish “Leopards” that burned down near El-Bab, with the ejector panel of the aft turret niche activated. Photo source: bmpd.livejournal.com

* — The organization’s activities are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation by decision of the Supreme Court.

Photo source: ru.wikipedia.org/böhringer friedrich...

Armored troops armed with American Abrams tanks are deployed in Iraq. 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 are already in battle.

This tank is considered the pride of Germany. Since 1977, more than 3 thousand Leopard-2 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, Turkey, 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 Abrams. 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.

However, the gun, which has a good range and shooting accuracy, does not have an automatic loader. And this is almost an atavism in modern times, because the absence of a machine gun almost directly affects the combat capabilities of the tank. Firstly, the rate of fire of the gun is reduced, since the loader has to make many of the same type of 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 an automatic loader for the gun, 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 have approximately the same cost characteristics - British, Israeli, American, French... As for the Russian T-90A tank, it costs only 2.5 million. And at the same time it leaves behind foreign tanks in a number of characteristics production. This is one of the reasons that Russian manufacturers are the undisputed leaders in the global tank market.

As before, the Leopard has poor underbody armor, and therefore the tank may become a victim of home-made mines.

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.

*By decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2014, the “Islamic State” movement was recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities in Russia are prohibited.

Views