New Turkish combat vehicles presented at IDEF 2017

The thirteenth International Defence Industry Fair (IDEF 2017) has been held in Turkey. While not extremely popular with foreign companies - despite having "international" in the name, not many international AFV manufacturers were present - this exposition serves as an opportunity for all Turkish defence companies to present their latest and greatest developments.

The company FNSS Defence Systems, a joint-venture of the Nurol Holding and BAE Systems, has presented a number of vehicles from the wheeled PARS family of vehicles (FoV) and the tracked Kaplan-20 and Kaplan-30 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs).

The Kaplan family of tracked vehicles

There are three main variants of the PARS: a light-weight 4x4 vehicle suited only for scouting, a slightly larger 6x6 variant and a large 8x8 version. The PARS design was originally developed by the the US company General Purpose Vehicles Inc. (GPV Inc., previously GPV LLC.), but failed to gain any orders by the US Army and USMC. In terms of weight and protection level, the PARS 6x6 and PARS 8x8 are more comparable to the previous generation of wheeled vehicles including AFVs such as the German Fuchs, the Swiss Piranha III, the French VAB and the US Army's Stryker interim armored vehicle (IAV). This is probably one of the main reasons for it's lack of sales, being not able to compete in performance (payload, protection, mobility and features) with more modern European designs such as the GTK Boxer, the Patria AMV and General Dynamic's Piranha 5.

The PARS vehicles have however been successfully exported to Malaysia, where a local version is known as AV-81 Gempita and manufactured by the local company DefTech.

The PARS 6x6 Scout features a new driver's cabin

At IDEF 2017, three new versions of the PARS were presented. The PARS Scout is also known as Special Purpose Tactical Wheeled Armoured Vehicle (SPTWAV) and is competing in the Turkish tender for a special purpose vehicle (SPV) against an offering from Otokar (probably a version of the Arma vehicle). The biggest change compared to other variants of the PARS 6x6 is the two-seat cabin at the vehicle front, which now features large windscreens made of ballistic glass, that allow a 230° horizontal viewing angle. A SARP remote weapon station ontop of the roof of the vehicle serves as main armament. The combat weight of the PARS Scout has yet to be made public, however it has a power-to-weight ratio of 22 horsepowers per ton and can reach a road speed of up to 100 kilometres per hour. The weight has not been announced, but if it's power by a 500-600 horsepower engine (like other PARS variants), the PARS 6x6 Scout would weigh around 22-27 metric tons. The hull belly is designed to withstand blasts from mines and IEDs, the seats are blast-proof. The amphibious vehicle is powered by two water blades located at the rear, reaching a swimming speed of 8 kilometres per hour (4.3 knots). On roads, the vehicle has a maximum operation rangee of 600 kilometres. It can cross 1.2 metres wide trenches and climb over vertical obstacles up to 600 mm high. It's maximum fording depth is one metre.

The PARS III is a further evolution of the old GPV design

Aside of the PARS Scout, the third generation of the baseline vehicles were presented. The PARS III 8x8 now has a maximum combat weight of 30 metric tons and can carry 12 soldiers (in the configuration presented at IDEF 2017, which included the Saber-25 one-man turret): Three crew members (commander, driver and gunner), aswell as up to 9 dismounts. The PARS III 6x6 has a lower combat weight of only 25 metric tons, and can carry only six dismounts in the configuration presented at IDEF 2017. Both vehicles have an operation range of more than 700 kilometres.

The main focus of the third generation PARS vehicle was apparently protection against current threats in assymetric warfare, FNSS claims that the resistance against mines is comparable to a MRAP, without stating anything more specific (some vehicles with relatively low level of protection are also called MRAPs...). The fuel tanks of the PARS III vehicles are designed to not detonate upon penetration and also to not leak fuel after being hit.

FNSS' Teber turret system

The company also presented it's TEBER-30/35 turret, which exists either as a manned turret for a crew of two or as an unmanned version, which does not penetrate the hull roof. The unmanned version - designated the TEBER-30/35 Remote Controlled Turret (RCT) can be fitted with either a 30 mm autocannon, such as the Bushmaster II Mk 44 chaingun from Aliant Techsystems, or a larger 35 mm autocannon such as the more powerful Bushmaster III gun. There is also the option of using the Bushmaster II Mk 44 with the 40 mm SuperShot (40 x 180 mm) calibre, which provides more payload, but lower penetration than the 35 x 228 calibre. The gun has dual-axis stabilization.

Depending on gun, ammunition storage varies. Up to 250 rounds of 30 x 173 mm ammunition fit into the turret, the amount of 35 x 228 mm ammo is limited to only 100. A 7.62 mm machine gun with 750 ready rounds serves as coaxial secondary armament. The maximum gun depression is -10°, the maximum elevation is +45°. The TEBER turret has two seperate sets of optics for gunner and commander, allowing hunter-killer operations. The type of optics has not been disclosed. The TEBER-30 unmanned turret is a welded aluminium construction with add-on steel or composite armor modules in order to reach what is believed to be STANAG 4569 level 4 protection all-around at most. Eight smoke grenade dischargers enhance the self-protection of the vehicle.

CGI showing the two-men Teber-30 turret

The manned TEBER-30 turret is operated by a crew of two. It's largely identical to the TEBER-30/35 RT, but provides storage options for up to 300 ready-to-fire rounds of 30/40 mm ammo and up to 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm machine gun ammunition. Unlike the unmanned version, the TEBER-30 cannot be fitted with the more powerful 35 mm autocannon, due to the gun's greater size and recoild path. The turret has a weight of 3.85 metric tons when fitted with an unknown armor package. Like the unmanned version, it is consisting of aluminium with applique steel and composite armor options. The maximum possible ballistic protection level is STANAG 4569 level 5 (protection against 25 mm ammunition along the frontal arc).

Kaplan-20 armored personnel carrier

Like the PARS, multiple different versions of the Kaplan tracked combat vehicle were presented at IDEF 2017. The Kaplan-20 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) has already been presented in 2015. It is meant to replace the ACV series of vehicles, which are essentially upgraded M113s, sometimes fitted with one-man turrets. FNSS calls the Kaplan vehicles also NG-AFV (next generation armored fighting vehicle).

The weight is depending on turret configuration, but it leads to a power to weight ratio between 22 and 25 horsepower per ton; 23 hp/ton in case of the exact vehicle displayed at IDEF 2017. Six roadwheels per side, which are connected to a torsion bar suspension, spread the weight of the vehicle along the lightweight rubber band tracks.

The IFV variant is fitted with the Teber-30/35 RT turret, usually armed with a 30 mm gun. It can carry up to 9 passengers, of which three are crew members (commander, driver and gunner). This year at IDEF, the armored personnel carrier (APC) configuration was showcased, which is armed with a remote weapon station (RWS) that is fitted with a machine gun. Modular composite armor provides protection against ballistic threats and mines of a yet to be officially announced level.

The Kaplan-30 is an enlarged Kaplan with betterr protection

First presented at IDEF 2017 is an enlarged version of the vehicle, known as the Kaplan-30 NG-AFV. Like the Kaplan-20, it is fitted with an automatic transmission coupled to a diesel engine. It was demonstrated with the latest version of the Teber-30/35 RT remotely controlled turret system, newer as the version used on the Kaplan-20 in 2015. The increased size of the vehicle offers greater payload. The Kaplan-30 has lost the amphibious capabilities of it's smaller cousin, while the power-to-weight ratio is reduced to only 20 hp/ton. These drawbacks were accepted in order to obtain a higher level of protection and to transport a a crew of three (commander, driver and gunner) plus eight dismounts instead of only six.

The Kaplan-30 might be a reaction to Otokar's Tuplar IFV. The Turkish Army is expected to open a tender for replacing the outdated ACV-15s; while FNSS developed the rather light Kaplan-20, the Tuplar is much heavier, providing a higher level of protection and room for twelve soliders (9 dismounts plus the crew of three).

The Kaplan Medium Tank is designed for the Indonesian Modern Medium Weight Tank (MMWT) program, competing with Rheinmetalls offer - a modified Marder 1A3 fitted with a Leonardo's Hitfact II turret. It is being developed by FNSS in cooperation with PT Pindad. The vehicle is based on a modified Kaplan chassis with rear-engine instead of the front-mounted concept used on the IFVs. With an estimated weight of 30 to 35 metric tons, the medium tank might be the development link between the Kaplan-20 and the Kaplan-30. The Cockerill 3105 turret from CMI Defence is fitted ontop of the modified hull. It is armed with a with 105 mm high-pressure Cockerill gun, capable of firing ammunition exceeding the official pressure limit of the 105 mm clabire according to NATO standards. The turret provides the commander and the gunner with two separate sets of optics (including thermal imagers and laser rangefinders), allowing the crew to carry out hunter/killer operations.

Previously the Kaplan medium tank for the MMWT project was only presented in form of computer-generated images, while Rheinmetall already had a working Marder medium tank by last year. The Kaplan Medium Tank was presented at IDEF 2017 to the public for the first time, it is expected to be ready for service by 2018.

Aselsan's Korhan features an advanced 35 mm gun-turret

Another armored fighting vehicle has been made by Aselsan, the largest defence company of Turkey; however Aselsan is usually focused on providing electronics and sub-components for combat vehicles. The new vehicle is known as Korhan and might be also meant to compete against Kaplan-20/30 and Tulpar for a potential contract with the Turkish Army. Unfortunately at the time of writing this passage, no reliable source provides enough adequate information about the vehicle.

It is fitted with an Aselsan-developed unmanned turret featuring advanced optics. Thanks to two separate sight units, the system is enabled for hunter/killer operations. The optronic units include laser rangefinders, daysight cameras aswell as thermal imaging systems. A further number of smaller optics is fixed to the turret; some of them are part of a 360° close-range surveillance system, while others optics located at the turret sides are part of a laser warning system.

The remotely controlled turret is armed with a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun as secondary armament. The main armament consists of a 35 mm autocannon, which is capable of firing locally developed KETF (kinetic energy time fuzed) airburst ammunition - essentially a direct copy of the AHEAD (advanced hit efficiency and destruction) concept for KETF rounds developed by Rheinmetall Oerlikon. AHEAD-based systems include various 35 mm anti-air guns such as the Rheinmetall Oerlikon GDF series, the Skyshield gun and the MANTIS C-RAM (counter rockets, artillery and mortar) system. It is also used on the CV9035 and on the German Puma IFV. The Turkish copy is also used in the new Korkut self-propelled anti-air gun (SPAAG), which is based on an upgraded M113 hull.

The Korhan's gun has a maximum elevation of +45°, the maximum gun depression is only -10°. A remote weapon station can be added ontop of the turret, if desired by the costumer. Alternatively the Akkor active protection system (APS) with two twin-launchers or a hatch for a mini-UAV (controlled

from inside the vehicle) can be added.

The Korhan's hull can be used for a mortar carrier

The Korhan's turret system is fitted with a modular armor system, utilizing bolt-on panels of composite armor atop the metal structure. The hull however apparently lacks any sort of modular armor in the demonstrated version. A sniper detection system and two banks of four smoke grenade dischargers each provide improved protection for the vehicle and nearby infantry. Like most IFVs, the Korhan has a front-mounted engine in order to allow the designers to incorporate a rear hatch for the dismounts. Up to eight dismounts can be tansported inside the rear compartment. Three crew members (commander, driver and gunner) are located in front of them. The vehicle utilizes steel tracks with rubber padding, the hull has six roadwheels per side, which are connected to an unknwon type of suspension (most likely a torsion-bar system or a hydropneumatic suspension). Aselsan also proposed a mortar vehicle based on a modified variant of the same hull.

Upgraded M60T Sabra

Other vehicles presented by Aselsan at IDEF 2017 include the Korkut SPAAG, and upgraded versions of the M60T Sabra and Leopard 2 NG. The M60T Sabra, a Israeli-developed upgrade for the Turkish M60A1 main battle tanks, now has been fitted with a SARP remote weapon station (RWS), a 360° camera system, laser warners and a new commander's cupola with increased situational awareness. The SARP RWS accepts either a 7.62 mm general purpose MG, a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (HMG) or a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher.

The Leopard 2NG is an upgrade for the Leopard 2A4, which has been developed by Aselsan. It is based on the Leopard 2 Evolution armor package from the German company IBD Deisenroth, while Aselsan has developed new optics and electronics. On the enhanced Leopard 2NG, Aselsan has added a laser warning system and a SARP RWS.

The company Otokar presented it's range of wheeled vehicles, including four different variants (two 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles) of the Arma wheeled AFV fitted with the Mizrak and Mizrak-S unmanned turrets - the latter being a new development first presented at IDEF 2017. The up to 24 metric tons heavy Arma failed to gain contracts by the Turkish Army, but has been successfully exported to other countries in the Middle East.

The Altay has been fitted with the SAAB Barracuda MCS

Otokar demonstrated two variants of the new Turkish Altay main battle tank (MBT), which is expected to enter production within the next year. However the project mightr be delayed after severe issues with the local engine development: while all original prototypes were build using the EuroPowerPack made by the German companies MTU (engine) and Renk (transmission), the Turkish government was interested in using an indigenous engine for the tank - in the end the only reason for the development of the Altay was to have an own Turkish tank, rather than buying the licence to locally manufacture the M1A2 Abrams, the Leopard 2A6 or the Leclerc MBT. When South Korea offered a transfer of technology (ToT), the Altay project was born. The MTU powerpack might still be used for the very initial batch of Altay tanks, but makes exporting the Altay quite complicated - Germany could block possible export contracts to countries with poor human rights record. The Turkish industry however failed to develop a proper replacement engine on it's own, which is why the Austrian company AVL List was chosen to deliver technology and components to TUMOSAN, the Turkish engine manufacturer.

The Ukrainian 6TD-3 six-cylinder engine might be fitted to some Altay batches

Due to political issues between Turkey and Austria, the Altay engine project the was delayed. The Austrian government decided to forbid AVL List to export know-how to Turkey, after the Turkish president insulted and threatend Austria and other European countries. Thus the Turkish government searched for another source of engine technology and ended up finding Ukraine's State Enterprise Malyshev Plant. About a year ago in May 2016, this state-owned company presented the 6TD-3, a six-cylinder two-stroke enigne with an output of 1,500 horsepower, which is supercharged and liquid-cooled. It is a further development of the 6TD-2E used on the Oplot MBT from KMBD, which can be traced back to the times of the Soviet Union. It's very questionable that this six-cylinder engine can achieve the same performance in all aspects (including size, fuel consumption, operational range, etc.) as the current offerings from the market-leading German and US enterprises. Pakistan supposedly is interested in using the same engine for the upgraded Al-Khalid 2 tank variant.

The Altay AHT

Also presented at IDEF 2017 for the first time was the Altay-AHT, new Altay variant optimized for assymetrical warfare and urban combat - why a modern tank, designed after the bad experiences of the US military in Iraq, lacks the armor for urban combat shows that something went wrong within the development process. The tank should have been designed with either a proper applique armor package or enough armor to be used in urban combat from the get go.

When upgraded to the AHT configuration, the tank's sides are protected by an unknown type of explosive reactive armor (ERA); given that Otokar is not known for making it's own armor solutions, this might be a type of new ERA designed by Roketsan. ERA from Roketsan will be fitted to a large number of Turkish M60 and Leopard 2 tanks. The turret front now has a sloped shape rather than flat walls, due to addition of passive applique armor. This might imply that the original frontal armor was not meant to resist all possible threats encountered in Syria. At the rear section of the hull and turret, slat armor is adopted to protect against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

The flanks of the Altay AHT are covered by ERA and slat armor

The tank is fitted with a new suite of optics in order to detect enemies approaching from all sides. The commander's independent periscope was dropped out of the AHT's design, instead a remote weapon station (RWS) fitted with a 12.7 mm heavy M2 machine gun, aswell as telescopic elevated observation system (EOS) have been added to the turret roof. The EOS is mounted on a retractable mast, it can be raised in order to enable the tank's crew to observe and spot targets, while the vehicle completely remains behind cover. It is apparently fitted with a thermal imager, but probably also includes a laser rangefinder and a daysight CCD camera - there are at least three openings for optics at the EOS' top module.

At the corner of the turret, the YAMGÖZ system and laser warners are mounted

The YAMGÖZ close-range surveillance system provides 360° degree coverage using cameras and thermal imager with a rather limited resolution. It consists of eight modules, each being a tandem of a camera and a night vision optic. Two modules are mounted at each corner of the turret, with a laser warning system located inbetween them. Each detector of the thermal imaging sensors has a resolution of 640 by 480 pixels, they operate at a spectral band of 8 to 12 µm. The daysight camera's have a slightly better resolution at 976 by 582 pixels. The field of view of both optics is limited to 40° horizontally and 30° in elevation. In terms of design this arrangement is similar to Rheinmetall's situational awareness system (SAS), but due the worse sensor unit layout, more optics are required - potentially leading to a higher price than Rheinmetall's offering.

Unlike the current Altay prototypes, the Altay-AHT's hull makes use of  a torsion-bar suspension; it can however be fitted with the original hydropneuamtic suspension if desired. Otokar cites easier maintenance for this decision. Indirectly the move to a torsion bar suspension might imply, that the Altay's hydropneuamtic suspension is not capable of dealing with the higher weight of the Altay-AHT, that it might offer lower reliability than the torsion-bar design or that replacing damaged components is a pain in the arse for the maintentance crews. A dozer blade is fitted to the hull front, which can be used for self-entrenching and clearing obstacles.

Like most modern tanks designed for urban combat, the upgraded Altay is also fitted with an electronical jammer to counter radio-fuzed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by jamming the frequencies used to fuze them. Furthermore the Altay-AHT has an acoustic location system to track the position of enemy snipers and soldiers. The laser warning system allows to launch the smoke grenade dischargers, acting like a simple soft-kill active protection system. Depending on setting, either the RWS, the EOS or the turret can be turned to face into the direction of a laser, from which the turret-mounted warners were triggered.

Leopard 2: Poland wants more; Germany and Turkey opt for upgrades

According to a news report from Defence24.com, the Polish Army is interested in buying more Leopard 2 main battle tanks (MBTs). Poland originally received 128 Leopard 2A4s for an extremely low price, a decision made in Germany in order to build up better political relationships between the two countries, which previously due to the second World War and previous conflicts had been terrible. A further 119 Leopard 2 tanks (including 105 relatively modern Leopard 2A5s) were ordered in 2013, after Germany (falsely) decided to downsize it's tank force. These second-hand tanks also were extremely cheap, costing only €180 million.

 

The Leopard 2PL is an upgraded Leopard 2A4 with AMAP armor, new optics, electronics and an APU

Given this history, it seems very unlikely that Poland is going to order newly built Leopard 2 tanks, which would cost between €5 and €11 million per vehicle, depending on variant and other parts and services being part of the contract value. Buying new tanks also would delay the introduction into service by some years, however the tanks could be more capable than what currently is possible with upgrading older vehicles - in order to keep upgrades cheap, most Leopard 2A4 users try to limit the weight of a modified version to 60 metric tons (above this limit the torsion bars need to be replaced, which requires some welding on the hull). 

Thus Poland is most likely looking to buy second hand Leopard 2A4 tanks for a much a lower price - before Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, used Leopard 2A4 tanks were sometimes sold for less than one million Euros per tank.

If Poland purchased Leopard 2A4 tanks, these MBTs then should be upgraded to the modern Leopard 2PL standard, which features enhanced surivability, firepower and slightly improved mobility. A thick AMAP composite armor module at the turret front boosts the frontal turret protection to a level comparable to the Leopard 2A7, while optics and modifications to the gun, improved drive system and a computer unit to program the 120 mm DM11 HE-airburst ammunition boost the tank's lethality.

A possible source for these second-hand tanks might be Norway; recent reports suggest that Norway is considering giving up it's small tank force (originally ordered 52 Leopard 2A4s, 46 left operational) in favor of a more mobile infantry-focused doctrine. Small infantry units should take out enemy tanks by using anti-tank guided missiles and other weapons. This is however only one of three options being considered by the Norwegian Army, in the end the tanks might be kept operational.

Finland might also be able to sell slightly less than a hundred Leopard 2A4 tanks, after purchasing 100 ex-Dutch Leopard 2A6 MBTs in 2014. Some of the 139 Leopard 2A4s originally bought by Finland have been relegated to reserve units, while others were converted into bridge layers, support vehicles or cannibalized for spare parts.

A third option for getting Leopard 2A4s at a low price might be Spain. Originally Spain leased 108 Leopard 2A4 tanks from Germany, which later were purchased by the Ejército de Tierra (Spanish Army), after Germany had downsized it's own military significantly and had no need for further tanks. Spain has offered the tanks to the Czech Republic and to Peru; however they were rejected due to being in a bad condition and thus requiring costly factory-level maintenance.

It is currently unknown what buying more Leopard 2 tanks means for the fate of the PT-16 tank developed by the Polish industry. It might result in no PT-16 being bought by the Polish Army, however the current government plans to increase the size of the military dramatically (together with it's budget), which might allow to upgrade some of the older T-72 and PT-91 tanks to the PT-16 configuration.

Leopard 2A5 of the Polish Army

Due to Russia's politics towards Eastern Europe (predominantely annexing Crimea and supporting the rebels in the civil war in Ukraine) being considered an aggression and inacceptable, NATO has increased it's focus on conventional warfare, shifting away from focusing on international peace-keeping, peace-making and anti-terror operations. To react faster and better in case of a Russian aggression, the Polish Army has moved some of it's currently most advanced tanks - the Leopard 2A5 - closer to it's eastern border. The tanks originally belonging to the 34th Armoured Cavalry Brigade located in Zagan (a city close to the German border) have been moved to the 1st Tank Brigade, which is stationed in Wesola, a place close to the country's capital, Warsaw. Likewise the PT-91, an enhanced, local version of the T-72 featuring ERAWA armor and improved electronics, will be used to replace some other tanks in the 1st Tank Brigade. Previously the unit was equipped with obsolete T-72M1 tanks.

The ADS system utilizes pre-warner radars, optronic sensors and box-based countermeasures

Meanwhile ADS Protection GmbH, a German company owned by Rheinmetall Defence and it's partner IBD Deisenroth Engineering, has suggested to the German military to adopt it's Active Defence System (ADS), a box-based active protection system (APS) capable of defeating (depending on exact variant) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) - including top-attack weapons, RPGs, EFPs, aswell as HE(AT) and APFSDS ammunition fired by main battle tanks. A report following an investigation on the system was presented to the German Defence Commitee at the end of March. Due to the commitee working in private, it is not known what the result of this report are. According to an earlier report in a news magazine, the system could enter service in 2018 or 2019, when ordered in 2017. The system manages to exceed the NATO STANAG 4686 requirements for active protection systems (intercepting more than 85% of incoming projectiles for a reduction in penetration capacity by 50%), defeating over 95% of incoming threats during testing.

On the 26th April of 2017, the German parliament finally approved a contract to buy and upgrade 103 Leopard 2A4 tanks, which are currently owned by the German defence industry. Previously the contract was delayed due to disputes between the two companies Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall, which could not agree on how the contract value would be split between them. Most of the tanks will be upgraded to the new Leopard 2A7V configuration, an upgraded variant of the Leopard 2A7, while the other tanks will be converted to support vehicles or repurposed in another way. The Leopard 2A7V will feature a stronger 20 kW auxiliary power unit (APU), enhanced armor protection, superior optics and improved communication systems. It might also feature the improved L/55A1 tank gun, that allows to operate at higher pressures. Together with new ammunition, this is said to improve performance/penetration by 20% compared to the current gun.

Leopard 2's originally produced with old armor package can be identified by the welded ammo hatch (red arrow)

After loosing several Leopard 2A4 tanks in combat against terrorists, Turkey is trying to improve the protection of the tanks. Depending on production batch, the 2A4 version of the tank is either fitted with a first, a second or a third generation armor package. At least some Turkish Leopard 2A4 tanks are most likely fitted with the oldest and weakest armor option, because they belong to the earliest production batches. These can be identified by the ammunition hatch located in the left side wall of the turret; it was closed (by welding steel ontop of it) when the tanks were upgraded to the 2A4 configuration.

According to the Military Technology Magazine, Turkish sources claim that a about 80 MBTs were used in the operation "Euphrates Shield", of which 43 were Leopard 2A4 tanks. Based on available data about 7 to 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks were hit by anti-tank guided missiles, damaging or destroying the tanks. Due to IS propaganda filming the same tank from different angles and pretending that this would be different vehicles, the exact kill number might be inflated.

M60A3 fitted with ERA from Roketsan

Currently 40 Leopard 2A4, 40 M60A3 and 120 M60T MBTs of the Turkish Army are planned to receive an upgrade to improve the protection against ATGMs, after two M60T tanks were already fitted with a remote weapon station (RWS) and laser warners. The M60T is meant to receive an active protection system; given that the Akkor APS is still in development, Turkey plans to buy an existing system. Furthermore the M60A3s and Leopard 2A4s are to be fitted with a new ERA kit from Roketsan (scheduled to be tested on a Leopard 2A4 first), a fire supression system, a close proximity surveillance system and the same upgrades as the two M60Ts received (which are laser warners and a SARP RWS). The upgraded Leopard 2A4 tanks are also meant to receive an APS, just like the M60T Sabra tanks. Which APS will be chosen is unknown, but Rheinmetall has complained about Germany blocking several weapon exports to Turkey; this might include the AMAP armor package used on the Turkish Leopard 2NG upgrade and/or the ADS active protection system.

The Leopard 2 tanks from Germany, Denmark and Poland did enjoy great success in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016, hosted by the US Army on the Grafenwöhr site located in Germany. This year's competition is scheduled to take place between the 7th and 12th of May. Denmark, Italy and Slovenia won't return after participating last year, however Austria (with Leopard 2A4s), France (with the Leclerc MBT), Romania (with the TR-85M1) and Ukraine (most likely using an upgraded T-64 version) join last year's competitors Germany, Poland and the United States. Let's see how the Leopard 2 can handle the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017.

Leopard 2 in Syria - part 2

Yesterday a new video was released by ISIS terrorists showing a bunch of destroyed main battle tanks (MBTs) and armored personnel carriers (APCs) near the Syrian city of Al-Bab. This video however has proven something, that I understimated a certain weapon. Not anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), not improvised explosive devices (IEDs). A much older weapon: propaganda. The same weapon that turned the Tiger heavy tank - a rather mediocre design of it's time - to a supposed super tank, that still is being worshipped by some individuals today. However the propaganda worked, invoking a Tiger-phobia on the side of the allies.

Now, what exaclty has happened? A new video showing the exact same area that the first few videos were showing. The destroyed or damaged tanks are probably all identical to the tanks already shown in earlier videos, that have been covered by numerous news articles and blogs. Still some people start writing articles in a sort of kneejerk reaction, claiming that these are newly defeated tanks and that the Turkish Army is just poorly trained or the Leopard 2 is a poorly designed tank, incapable of competing on the same level as the tanks of other countries (even though this is not tank-vs-tank warfare...). This again leads to people to come and reply or spread the articles, which are pushing for their own agenda. "The T-90 is so much better, only one was penetrated!", "All people who think the Leopard 2 is a good are Nazi-tank fanboys" and "The Abrams/Challenger 2/T-84 is an inpenetratable super tank". People love to ignore the fact that the Turkish Leopard 2A4 is fitted with out-dated armor, possibly still the first generation of armor technology introduced with the original Leopard 2 in 1979. The fact that the Turkish Army was purged after the failed coup attempt - in which most tank units were equipped with Leopard 2A4 tanks - is intentionally ignored.

So what exactly has happened to the Leopard 2 in the past month in Syria? Well, apparently not much in that area. ISIS was only interested in spreading images from already destroyed tanks - this might mean that there are no newer encounters that were video-taped.

Leopard 2 tank wrecks in Syria

The first Leopard 2A4 tanks of the Turkish Army were destroyed or at least disabled in combat already in December. Above are screenshots from one of the very first combat encounters, below are captures from two different propaganda videos - all showing the same two destroyed tanks. Well that's propaganda, pretending (by using different camera positions and filming on different days) to have destroyed six tanks, while in reality only two were destroyed (or rather one was destroyed, while one was apparently rendered immobile and abandoned).

An ATGM penetrated the roof of this tank

The image above shows a tank was hit by an ATGM at the roof. There are at least three different scenes from different videos showing this tank. It actually might be four, but the image quality of one is so bad, that it couldn't be clarified without doubt. This shows again how the terrorists' propaganda tries to inflate kill numbers in an attempt to demoralize the enemy. They supposedly even filmed the tank at different times of the day, so that the mood of light changed.

Blowing up captured tanks

The terrorists are known to have captured up to three tanks, of which one had a track issue. So what to do with a tank that cannot be utilized by the own forces? Blow it up in a propaganda video, pretending that it was an enemy tank destroyed in combat.

Victims of a large explosion: airstrike or blown up after being abandoned

Supposedly at least one captured tank was destroyed by an airstrike from a Turkish F-16. A photo showing a Leopard 2A4 with turret popped of the hull was shared on Twitter in December 2016. While it is not exactly confirmed that this tank is one of the two destroyed tanks above, all vehicles in above photo show damaga typical for airstirkes or large explosive charges being placed inside the vehicle. This can be seen by locking at the front of the Otokar APV (engine compartment blown off) and the excessive damage caused to the frontal Leopard 2.

One can only speculate about the exact fate of this tanks. Were they abandoned and then destroyed by an airstrike? Were they captured by ISIS and then destroyed by Turkish forces? Did the terrorist blow them up for a propaganda video?

Overview with text by militaysta

That's why speculating about how awful or how good some military unit perform just based on photos of wrecks doesn't make sense. Who knows how many hits the tank took before ending there? Or maybe the tanks didn't even take any damage but broke down before combat. Who would know based on a wreck of a tank?

Snafu Solomon reblogged an interesting article from DieselPunkIsDad on survivability bias. While this term doesn't exactly apply to the topic, it clearly shows the same problem: people are judging the peformance of a combat vehicle, a military unit or even a whole nation based on a biased subset of encounters. The Battle of Crete was a horrible failure from the perspective of the Nazi-German Army, which abandoned the tactics of airborne invasion via paratroopers after it. From the perspective of the Allies, who were unaware of the German losses, the airborne invasion was suddenly a highly effective tool of warfare - that happens when only a subset of data is considered. How many videos out there are showing an Iraqi or a Saudi Abrams tank getting hit by an ATGM, while sitting in the open without (mechanized/motorized) infantry support? Everytime such a video appears, someone comments on how bad said vehicle/persons are doing and how they are essentially getting slaughtered. What is ignored in this context is that the terrorists will only show your successful attacks - that's how propaganda works. But how many times do their attacks fail by missing the target, failing to penetrate the armor or being discovered and killed?

Older informations on Turkish losses via Reddit

So what is the conclusion of this post? Well, probably that one should keep calm and take some time to think about what is shown by a source and what the motivation for showing this is. Based on the videos and earlier reports of Turkish losses, there seem to be no recently destroyed tanks at this specific area near Al-Bab. This could have several different reasons, but speculations without sources won't lead to much.

According to older Turkish sources, a total of ten Leopard 2A4 tanks, one M60T Sabra and four other vehicles were disabled or destroyed in the area around Al-Bab. One Leopard 2 had an issue with the tracks and the situation of one tank is unknown (supposedly this tank is among the ones captured by ISIS). Two tanks were damaged by IEDs, one of them heavily. A further tank was damaged by a mortar attack, while the other five Leopard 2A4 tanks were damaged by ATGMs - back then not a single tank was listed as destroyed by ATGMs. Earlier sources from about a week before the losses were leaked/published via Twitter claim that fifteen M60T Sabra tanks, three M60 tanks and three Leopard 2A4 were hit by ATGMs. One of the M60 tanks and three Sabras were total losses. Supposedly ten soldiers died in Turkish tanks at this time. The fact that no new tank wrecks appeared in the area from Al-Bab doesn't mean that Turkey hasn't lost more tanks since then - but it also doesn't directly confirm any losses at other places.

Turkish sources claim that between the 8th and 18th January 192 air raids and firing 2,196 rounds of artillery, tank and mortar ammunition resulted in the death of 1,362 enemies, a further 168 were wounded. As always these claims haver to be taken with a grain of salt, as there is no proof for any of these claims and kill figures of airstrikes and artillery are known to be exaggerated quite often. Still if true, one shouldn't pretend that the Turkish Army is so bad and the "Arabs are horrible at war" meme applies (not to mention that technically Turks aren't Arabs). Yes, the first Leopard 2 tanks were employed in a horrible way and thus destroyed. But maybe at least some common NATO training standards are met and result in some better performance after the initial shock.

Leopard 2 in Syria

Turkish Leopard 2 tanks are actively operating in the war in Syria. The tanks have been photographed at different locations near the town of Al Bab, which is located about 35 kilometres (21.7 miles) north-eastern of Aleppo. A few photos were shared on Twitter, apparently taken by Turkish soldiers. More detailed photos and video footage was provided by the SMART news agency, which is said to have ties to Syrian rebels.

Turkish Leopard 2A4 in Syria

The Turkish Army is operating the Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT) since 2005, when an initial batch of 298 Leopard 2 tanks was ordered. A further 56 tanks were purchased in 2010 and 2013. The Turkish military previoulsy tested the Leopard 2 Improved (Leopard 2A5/6 prototype), the Leclerc with additional armor package, the Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan tank (a version of the T-84 fitted with 120 mm gun and bustle-mounted autoloader) aswell as the M1A2 Abrams fitted with the MT883 diesel engine (as the gas turbine proved to be a main issue for potential buyers). The Leopard 2 Improved performed best, however the Turkish government didn't purchase the tanks in the originally planned volume and version (up to a thousand Leopard 2A5 tanks were wanted by the military). Instead the Turkish goverment favored the  local production of MBTs, where the bid by the South-Korean company Hyundai-Rotem was chosen over Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's offer, because it included the full transfer of technology instead being a licence production agreement. This lead to the Altay main battle tank, based on South-Korean technology used on the K2 Black Panther MBT.

The Turkish Army has been operating the M60 tank and the upgraded M60T Sabra in Syria since a few months already. The Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks were held back, despite offering a few key advantages over the other tanks. The reason for this is that the Turkish purchase of the Leopard 2 was very controversial in Germany, Turkey even had to sign an agreement permitting the usage of the tanks for other tasks than pure self-defence. As revealed in an interview with the Turkish journalist and military expert Mete Sohtaoğlu by the German BILD magazine, the agreement on cooperation between the two countries in 2009 gave the Turkish Army the permission to use the Leopard 2 tanks in combat. It seems possible that this permission was still limited to operations in Turkey only and the Turkish Army was allowed to use the Leopard 2 in Syria just a few months ago.

Turkish Leopard 2s after arriving in Syria

The exact number of Leopard 2 tanks being used in combat is currently still unknown. However photographs show that there are at least eleven tanks painted in the new desert camouflage scheme, suggesting that at least a full company of tanks is operational in Syria. It has been claimed that the Turkish tanks operate in platoons of three tanks, which is rather unique as most tank platoons consist of four or even five tanks. According to a Spanish blogger, 18 Leopard 2A4 tanks arrived in Syria at the 8th December 2016, followed by a further 25 tanks arriving two days later. This information is apparently based on various photographs of tanks being transported to the border. If correct, this means that there is most likely a complete Leopard 2 tank battalion deployed in Syria or to the Syrian border region.

Leopard 2 being hit by an ATGM (click to enlarge)

In one incident a tank was apparently hit by an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). The Leopard 2 was in a hull-down position, the hull being located behind a large heap of ground. The missile hit the turret section of the tank, it is not known if it was penetrated or not. The missile that hit the MBT is supposedly an US-made TOW-2A ATGM. Rumors are conflicting on what happened to the tank: some sources claim that the tank's armor was not penetrated, other suggest that the armor was penetrated, but noone died due to the ammunition not being incinerated by the spall.

Two further Leopard 2s being engaged by ATGMs (click to enlarge)

In a further incident two further Leopard 2 MBTs were attacked with ATGMs. The enemies attacked the tanks from behind the Turkish lines, launching the missiles at the sides and rear of the tanks. A first ATGM disabled the tank closest to the camera, but no ammunition was set on fire - this means that even if the ATGM managed to penetrate the tank's armor, there is a rather high probability that not all crew members died, but were only injured. On a tank without separated ammunition storage in the turret, such as the Italian Ariete MBT or different versions of the T-72 and T-80, a penetration at this spot could lead to the death of the whole crew.

The second tank was apparently hit from diagonal from behind, hitting the turret bustle. It was hit after the first tank already took an ATGM to it's turret, the crew apparently was completely ignoring this fact. The tank did not try to secure the flank from which the enemy ATGMs were launched, something that should have been done after the first missile hitting. The missile set either the hydraulic systems or the turret ammunition on fire, leading to a visible blast and flames. In the Leopard 2 the turret hydraulics and the turret ammunition are located in separate compartments, which are isolated from the crew. So in theory there still is no proof that the crew compartment was penetrated - the crew might have survived with no or little injuries only. However when being hit by a powerful ATGM from behind (which could lead to a penetration of the compartment walls/door) or when the door of the ammunition compartment is open, the detonation could also kill the crew. It is not known if any Turkish soldiers died in any of the three Leopard 2 tanks hit by ATGMs.

The armor generations of the original Leopard 2 production models

A big issue with the Turkish Leopard 2 tanks is the fact that they are outdated, they are not designed to resist currently available ATGMs and their armor is completely focused on protecting the frontal arc. It is not clear which armor package is fitted to the Turkish Leopard 2A4. While the late production Leopard 2A4 tanks received stronger armor inserts, all older production models were converted to the Leopard 2A4 configuration - without changing the armor composition! In fact even a few of the newly built Leopard 2A4 tanks were built with one of the older armor packages. Between 1979 and 1992 (the time were the Leopard 2 tank was series produced in Germany) three different generations of armor were used. It is not known if these are identical with single armor packages or mutliple different armor packages were used within a "technology generation". The first generation armor was introduced in 1979, while the second generation armor (1988) and third generation armor (1991) were exlusively used on Leopard 2A4 tanks.

Leopard 2A7 prototype fitted with additional armor to protect against RPGs and ATGMs

More modern armor packages were introduced in the German Army variants in the late 1990s with the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and in 2014 with the Leopard 2A7. Furthermore a number of companies such as Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), Rheinmetall/IBD Deisenroth and RUAG are offering armor upgrades beyond the current Leopard 2A7, usually by mounting external armor modules at the front, sides, rear and roof. The protection can also be enhanced by adding a new softkill or hardkill active protection systems (APS). The MUSS softkill system has been tested on the Leopard 2 in 2003 and has been fielded on the Puma IFV. It is capable of jamming most missile systems and automatically hiding the tank behind a multi-spectral cloud of smoke, generated by firing special smoke grenade dischargers.

Why does this matter? Because the Turkish Leopard 2 tanks are older models upgraded to the 2A4 variant (easy to identify thanks to the old ammunition hatch) and not newer production vehicles, which were built with better armor packages. While KMW does offer upgrading the armor inserts to a newer generation - or at least the company did offer this option in the past - there are no reports about the Turkish Leopard 2A4 tanks being upgraded. As the Turkish Army wanted and tested the Leopard 2 Improved, it seems most likely that the original plan saw the upgrade of all purchased Leopard 2A4s to the Leopard 2A6 configuration at a later point of time, a plan probably stopped in favour of the Altay development.

The AMAP armor modules installed on the Leopard 2NG

Turkey might attempt to push the Leopard 2NG into service. The Leopard 2NG (Next Generation) is an upgrade developed as a private venture by the Turkish company Aselsan with a number of partners. While this upgrade replaces the optroncis and fire control system, it also includes new electric gun and turret drives, a remote wepaon station (RWS) and a new fire supression system. The Leopard 2NG is also using IBD's AMAP armor package for enhanced protection against anti-tank ammunition, missiles, mines and improvised explosive devices.

More important than the technology used on a tank might be the tactics on how the tank is being used. The Turkish Leopard 2 tanks seem to be poorly employed, sitting always behind heaps of ground in a hull-down position. While a hull-down position is favourable in certain situations -  such as symmetric warfare when the direction from which the enemy will approach is known - it is not a good idea for the tanks to remain in a static position without proper protection, when they can be attacked from the side and rear aswell. In the incident where two tanks were hit, the crew of the second tank was apparently not reacting at all - they simply ignored that the other Leopard 2 has been hit by an ATGM some time ago, the crew apparetnly didn't care about taking out the enemy ATGM team. 

When using tanks in a static emplacement just for fire support, one should expect them to be used in a secured perimeter. If the tanks are not capable of securing the area by themselves, then infantry or other combat vehicles should take over the task. Surveillance and reconnaisance vehicles with thermal imagers should have no issues detecting enemy ATGM teams and infantry even at long distances. The Turkish Army doesn't seem to employ the tanks as part of a combined arms doctrine - tanks are always seen operating alone and not together with (mechanized or motorized) infantry. Instead the Leopard 2 tanks seem to play sitting ducks and serve as more expensive artillery replacement... a cheap 120 mm mortar carrier vehicle would probably be better suited for this job.

About that M60T which survived a Kornet ATGM...

On the 19th April 2016 a photograph of a damaged  M60T tank have been posted on the internet. The tank was attacked by terrorists using supposedly a Russian Kornet (9M133, NATO reporting name AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Jane's also reported on this matter.

The M60T tank is a version of the Sabra Mark 2 tank upgrade by the Israeli Military Inudstries (IMI) developed for the Turkish Army. It is based on the Sabra upgrade for the M60 main battle tank (MBT). The Sabra add upgrade includes additional special armor (composite and/or reactive armor), a 120 milimetre smoothbore gun, the Knight fire control system (FCS) and upgrades to the engine aswell as the transmission. 

In case of the Sabra Mark 2 on which the M60T is based, the M60's AVDS-1790 engine and Allison transmission are replaced with the MT881 engine and Renk R304S transmission from the German companies MTU and Renk. The armor solution has been described as hybrid armor, which might suggest a type of ERA in combination with passive armor. However also the combination of non-explosive reactive armor types (NERA, NxRA) with passive armor has been described as hybrid armor.

Damaged M60T tank after the impact of a Kornet ATGM

Following the release of the photograph of the damaged tank, a lot of different claims and opinions on the matter of the effectiveness of tanks, the M60T's armor, ATGMs and the Kornet have been made. While some of these claims and opinions are based on a careful evaluation of the available information and on a reasonable thought process, it appears that a lot of people have abused the incident for preaching their own beliefs — "tanks are dead", "Turkish M60 tank is better armored than Russian T-90", "missiles cannot penetrate ERA/modern armor".

So, what should one learn from the incident? Is the M60T Sabra tank able to survive a Kornet ATGM under all circumstances? Can it survive a Kornet ATGM at least frontally? Or can any old, last generation tank be upgraded with a lightweight armor package to survive an impact from the Kornet ATGM? Is the Kornet weaker than other ATGMs? 

First of all, let's take a few looks at the M60T/Sabra and the Kornet ATGM. The M60T is based on the M60 tank from the 1960s. It uses the original turret and chassis, but has additional hybrid armor laid over the steel construction. How much armor? An approximation for this answer can be found by looking at the vehicle weight: The M60T has supposedly a weight of 59 metric tons - that is between 7 and 8 metric tons heavier than the original M60 model on which it is based. The weight increase is however not only the result of the new armor modules, but is also related to the 120 mm smoohtbore gun, the heavier powerpack and new fire control system components. Just for the reference, the weight of the composite armor modules of the original Leopard 2 turret only (from 1979) supposedly is 8 metric tons, while the turret is considerably smaller! Yes, the original Leopard 2 uses older armor, but instead of just replacing the old armor modules during future upgrades, additional armor was installed, increasing the turret weight by about 5 metric tons.

The Kornet ATGM is meant to combat modern main battle tanks from the front - it's 152 mm calibre tandem warhead is much more capable than the RPG-29 with 105 mm calibre warhead with precursor charge. According to Russian sources the Kornet ATGM can depending on version penetrate between 1,000 and 1,300 mm of steel armor, which given the missile's calibre and the penetration power of modern shaped charge warheads seems plausible.

Above is a screen-capture from the video, which supposedly shows the same M60T being hit by the Kornet ATGM. While it cannot be said for sure that this is the same tank, sources like Jane's have claimed that the only reason for releasing the photograph of the damaged tank was to counter the terrorists' propaganda, which claimed that the M60T was destroyed by the Kornet missile.

The screenshot from the video shows a number of interesting facts. Most importantly here is however the location and the angle of the impact. By comparing the position of the gun (marked in blue) to the path of the missile (marked in red), we can see that the missile approached from the left side (from the tank's perspective) and impacted on the righthand side of the turret frontal armor.

This means that the missile passed the gun barrel and impact on the frontal armor below the gunner's sight at an angle, which made it impossible to hit the base turret behind the armor. The missile's impact path was facing away from the turret. The large module of spaced hybrid armor was probably the only reason why the missile detonated, otherwise it most likely would have missed given the extremely sleek turret cheeks of the M60 tank!

Did the M60T survive a Kornet missile? Yes. Would the missile have hit the tank, if it wasn't for the additional armor module? Most likely not. If the missile had more penetration power, could it have penetrated the M60T's turret and killed the crew? Based on the angle from the video footage, no.