Jump to content


Photo

Tanks in Syrian Revolt


  • Please log in to reply
3681 replies to this topic

#2981 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 26 December 2016 - 1623 PM

@ #2979
 
Have the Turks deployed many M48s to Syria?
One would think Turkey has enough M60s to go around for this limited op, so why use an older tank with less protection if its not necessary?
Or maybe its just that the armoured units based close to the Syrian border are genericaly equipped with M48s, and they feelt it wasnt worth the logistic hustle to move in other units..


My assumption is that either the Turks do not want to risk their most expensive tanks, or that they didn't think Daesh would be able to put up such a tough fight. They were obviously wrong on the second part...
  • 0

#2982 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 26 December 2016 - 1819 PM

 

@ #2979
 
Have the Turks deployed many M48s to Syria?
One would think Turkey has enough M60s to go around for this limited op, so why use an older tank with less protection if its not necessary?
Or maybe its just that the armoured units based close to the Syrian border are genericaly equipped with M48s, and they feelt it wasnt worth the logistic hustle to move in other units..


My assumption is that either the Turks do not want to risk their most expensive tanks, or that they didn't think Daesh would be able to put up such a tough fight. They were obviously wrong on the second part...

 

 

They have sent the Leopard 2s in and lost several, so the 'not risking their most expensive tanks' is now gone as a factor.  Given its weaker gun and armor compared to the M60T and Leopard 2A4, I do not expect to see any M48s in Syria save those converted into ARVs.  The M48A5T2 is simply not survivable enough to be really effective and given Daesh's ATGM propaganda an ineffective tank near al-Bab is worse than no tank at all.


  • 0

#2983 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 26 December 2016 - 1829 PM

I figure they need to lose tanks to ATGMs to learn how to fight them in this type of fight.  M48's aren't going to be any worse off against AT-3's all the way up to 14s.  Though, they have enough M60s so that there's no need for the 48s.

 

You see it in all modern conflicts, really.  Israel against AT-3s with M60s and Merkava's against AT-14s.  They learnt by fire.


  • 0

#2984 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 27 December 2016 - 0521 AM

That paints a much clearer picture then.  Thanks. 


  • 0

#2985 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2016 - 1550 PM

 

 

Did you guys noticed that one of these Leopard 2's, turret ammo magazine internal side bulkhead failed?

 

Most likely fire induced unless it was open when hit.  It can happen with M1s.  I'd assume that's the case here.

 

  What he's talking about on the Leo2 is that it appears that the ammunition enclosure has been breached.  

 

And yet the bulkhead seem to be completly missing and with no visible deformation to the structure its supposed to be bolted onto. Most likely removed after it was hit. 

This would be analogous to the ammo doors on the M1 being breached.  

 

No, in fact it wouldn't because even IF the side panel was breached during ammo combustion, there is no opening between that part of the bustle and the figthing compartment so the fire would still be contained .


  • 0

#2986 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 27 December 2016 - 1949 PM

Another Leo 2A4 hit (turret to rear, so it might be these rather than the older 2 that were shown in the drone footage):

C0qBbayVQAQCJZI.jpg

C0qBdC1UoAEw_rP.jpg


  • 0

#2987 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 27 December 2016 - 1955 PM

And another tank hit with an AT-5 (Leo or M60T):

C0qBE7xUQAAON5l.jpg


  • 0

#2988 Dreilide

Dreilide

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0101 AM

IIRC Leopard 2A4 has compressed flammable (unlike abrams, which is non-flammable) hydraulic fluid for the turret drive, the pump for which is in the right bustle, it could have contributed to the first leopard's fire in #2955.


  • 0

#2989 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0146 AM

When the bustle goes up, it's not always a perfect flame torch venting out the top; sometimes it's smoldering debris and slag spitting out all over the place, which can land on the engine deck (as DKTanker said) and turret roof.  If hatches are open, then there's a chance of it falling in and starting a fire.

 

The M1A2 going up in Yemen is a good example of debris spitting everywhere.


Edited by BLAH, 28 December 2016 - 0207 AM.

  • 0

#2990 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0649 AM

IIRC Leopard 2A4 has compressed flammable (unlike abrams, which is non-flammable) hydraulic fluid for the turret drive, the pump for which is in the right bustle, it could have contributed to the first leopard's fire in #2955.

good point. Never was a good prospect for me to be inside a hydraulic drive Leo2 when hit and hot and burning hydraulic oil spraying all over the place. I think Singapore at least put the electric drive into theirs.


I wonder if one could just replace one hydraulic fluid with another? Or are there problems I do not see?

Edited by Panzermann, 28 December 2016 - 0651 AM.

  • 0

#2991 grabie

grabie

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0730 AM

IIRC, from A5 version hydraulic system was replaced by electric.


  • 0

#2992 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0731 AM

There should be no problems, AFAIK US and later Israel replaced old flammable hydraulic fluids with new non flammable designed for M1, in their M60's and maybe also M48's.


  • 0

#2993 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 28 December 2016 - 0742 AM

IIRC, from A5 version hydraulic system was replaced by electric.


Yes. also offered as retro fit to A4 by KraussMaffei-Wegmann.
  • 0

#2994 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1750 PM

There should be no problems, AFAIK US and later Israel replaced old flammable hydraulic fluids with new non flammable designed for M1, in their M60's and maybe also M48's.

I'd like to correct something here, while OHT (Cherry Juice) was replaced with another hydraulic fluid, FRH, it is not non-flammable.  FRH (Fire Retardant Hydraulic) will burn but has a higher flashpoint than OHT.


  • 0

#2995 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,056 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1808 PM

I'd like to correct something here, while OHT (Cherry Juice) was replaced with another hydraulic fluid, FRH, it is not non-flammable.  FRH (Fire Retardant Hydraulic) will burn but has a higher flashpoint than OHT.


Is it possible to use fully non-flammable liquid while saving usage stats at all?
  • 0

#2996 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1846 PM

Biggest problem is fine aerosol formed when high pressure hydraulic line is penetrated.. It is very hard to find a single hydraulic fluid that will not flash in those conditions.


Edited by bojan, 28 December 2016 - 1847 PM.

  • 0

#2997 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1923 PM

vh8JShY.jpg


  • 0

#2998 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,219 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2016 - 2209 PM

vh8JShY.jpg

 

Great pic...thanks!


  • 0

#2999 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 0325 AM

Biggest problem is fine aerosol formed when high pressure hydraulic line is penetrated.. It is very hard to find a single hydraulic fluid that will not flash in those conditions.

 

The Army and Air Force had a joint program to develop a true non-flammable hydraulic fluid back in the 80s. It was not petroleum based and had no known flash/fire point. The first vehicle program to potentially use it was supposed to be ASM, since upgrading the existing fleet of vehicles meant changing all the pump and valve systems. With the death of ASM, I guess they lost interest.


  • 0

#3000 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,056 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 December 2016 - 0335 AM

 
The Army and Air Force had a joint program to develop a true non-flammable hydraulic fluid back in the 80s. It was not petroleum based and had no known flash/fire point. The first vehicle program to potentially use it was supposed to be ASM, since upgrading the existing fleet of vehicles meant changing all the pump and valve systems. With the death of ASM, I guess they lost interest.

So it is possible, but requires full hydraulic systen rework...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users