Chatulio

9th May 2015 - 07:35 AM

Hello Kurdishpatriot,

I have seen very little context about this delivery, but comparing stats make them appear more comparable to the Panzerfaust 3-systems. The AT4 is lighter, the ranges seem to be comparable, the caliber is smaller, the penetration seems to be lower, though many values are naturally military and so precise values can be rare and advertisements from the manufacturer can be optimistic.

A variant called AT4-CS is optimized for urban combat (with a counterweight of salt-water being launched backwards when the main shot forward is fired to absorb the hot gases from the main charge).
In the german military, the Matador might be similar, with plastic bundles launched backwards when the Matador fires to make it recoil-free and allow firing from enclosed spaces.
The AT4 use an optical sight according to what I've found.

If the data I've found is accurate and the shipment comes through, it can help as a light anti-tank weapon. Combined with the tank-hunting courses of the KTCC and the german infantry academy in Hammelburg (where around 30 Peshmerga take courses) they can help taking down IS vehicles and clean out buildings.


With best regards,

Chatulio

Chatulio

9th May 2015 - 06:55 AM

Hello Jim,

You, in one sentence, accuse Me, as well as many others, of 'the height of arrogance' for saying that supporting a native group (in this case the KRG) in the Middle East might be a way to end the constant vicious circle of larger interventions and beat doing nothing at all and then You demand support for the KRG?
I have to say I've had it with Your constant accusations whenever You seem to feel like You could twist something to suit Your apparent misconceptions. And demeaning the european support for the KRG is frankly very insulting.

We've already discussed the topic of weapons delivered at length ... if You take a look at the inventories of delivered items by the german military, You might notice that a considerable amount of cargo space is taken up by ammunition, spare parts, special tools, equipment kits and so on for items already delivered. This goes from bullets for G3s, MILAN rockets and special toolkits for the vehicles and Dingo-vehicle tires, doors and windows. That means that more and more of the cargo plane space has to be taken up with logistical support for the delivered weapons, equipment and vehicles. This is called the logistical footprint of the equipment, weapons and vehicles delivered so far. The more, the heavier and the more advanced items are delivered, the more this increase is. That means less new stuff per plane. This could easily explain the focus on equipment that is relatively easy to use and low maintenance (though apparently still enough to fill up plane space with parts and tools, including full engines for Dingos, and spare parts transport for heavy vehicles would mean far less supplies in total for fewer vehicles).

For someone who alleges to have a military background, it always surprises me how little regard You seem to pay to the realities of logistics. From Alexander the Great's great focus on logistics to Sun Tzu's focus on keeping the troops in the field correctly supplied, or the supply requirements that toppled Napoleon's invasion of Russia and helped decide WW II it is a basic building block throughout military history and ignoring it could easily lead to ineffective advanced weapons stopped by lack of logistics so the enemy could simply pick them up or destroy them at his/her leisure. The Vietcong won their war also because of their logistics, apparently something the US realized at the time, seeing what lengths they went to to close down the supply routes (and the Vietcong won their war with relatively primitive weapons, even for their day). And both Gulf Wars were also the success of the US logistics division that to set up fuel supply posts even ahead of the US advance in the second Gulf War to make the run to Bagdad a success. Otherwise the advance would've stalled along the way.
No enthusiasm or degree of passion can make up for lack of logistics.

The weapons and equipment delivered so far already require training and plenty of logistics (over 1500 tons of military materials spread out over 21 flights delivered so far by Germany alone), but seem to be very effective at helping to keep the IS at bay. You could respect that and ask for more, which works so far, or You could insult the donators thoroughly enough that they'll rather put their equipment, weapons and vehicles elsewhere.

That naturally also fully ignores the reality that the western allies are currently fighting in many theatres of operations, from the strengthened Operation Triton that requires military vessels in the middle sea, the observation of the lebanese coast as part of the peace settlement between Israel and the Lebanon, operations to secure humanitarian missions in Africa, over Operation Atalanta at the Horn of Africa to having to keep Russia's expansion at bay, which could carry the risk of at least limited warfare between Russia and the NATO, with no guarantee of victory for the NATO. Russia presents its T-14 tank in the victory celebrations to demonstrate technological superiority or at least parity with the west with plans for much greater numbers than the NATO can provide. Germany, e.g. has very low numbers of remaining vehicles, with perhaps 225 tanks now and 328 in a few years, about 20 2A7, some 2A6M and many 2A5 and a few 2A4 ... all in all not very impressive. Only around 19 Puma IFVs are delivered so far, Boxers are likewise in short supply, so Marders have to remain in service. Russia has boasted that it intends to field over 2300 T-14 tanks in a few years. Relations are even worse when it comes to artillery and the german army does not even boast organic anti-air defenses anymore. The Tiger helicopter is still faulty and thus not in widespread distribution ... there simply isn't so much gear that can be spared. And among the european allies Germany is one of the stronger military powers. The Netherlands have, as far as I have heared, even dissolved their tank troops a few years back and the british have closed down their Challenger 2 production.

The west's resources are not unlimited and self-defense needs to come first. I agree that some more support could be given by some, though Germany's recent increases in the frequency of flights likely already comes close to the maximally possible. The US especially could improve their support for the KRG, obviously.


With best regards,

Chatulio

Quote:

 

The United States, the official said, recently sent a shipment of arms for Kurdish forces in KRG, including a delivery of about 1,000 AT4 antitank systems and hundreds of Milan antitank weapons.

Jim M

12th May 2015 - 04:29 AM

Looking at all those home made vehicles I can't help thinking that all that effort could go into the building of an existing design of an armored vehicle. There are some great designs out there that could be built under licence and it looks like there is a talent for building that could be used for this purpose.



Brazilian EE-9 CASCAVEL with 90mm Cannon. This vehicle is already on the Peshmerga inventory so field experience of the crews that are operating it could be used for upgrades on an assembly line.

All those weapons that the KRG is receiving are for a defensive war. The only way this war can be won is to go on the offensive with weapons like this.

Jim M

12th May 2015 - 04:29 AM

Looking at all those home made vehicles I can't help thinking that all that effort could go into the building of an existing design of an armored vehicle. There are some great designs out there that could be built under licence and it looks like there is a talent for building that could be used for this purpose.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9DpBjMUF64/maxresdefault.jpg

Brazilian EE-9 CASCAVEL with 90mm Cannon. This vehicle is already on the Peshmerga inventory so field experience of the crews that are operating it could be used for upgrades on an assembly line.

All those weapons that the KRG is receiving are for a defensive war. The only way this war can be won is to go on the offensive with weapons like this.

ALAN

13th May 2015 - 12:08 AM

US will provide weapon for Kurds if Baghdad refrains: Zalmay Khalilzad

Former U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad stated Washington would arm KRG Kurds if the central government in Baghdad refrains from sending the weapons Kurds need in fighting against the militants of the Daash (IS).
Speaking with Rudaw, Khalilzad called Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani’s visit to the U.S. decisive and stated Barzani has discussed Mosul liberation operation, Kurdistan Region’s economic crisis and the troubles of the refugees in the region during his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.
He also stressed on the influential and important role of the Kurdish forces of Peshmerga in fighting against the IS and said Washington would provide needed weapons for the forces if Baghdad refrains to arm them.
He further called the region’s independent oil export natural as long as the central government in Baghdad does not send the region’s share of the national budget.
Barzani met Obama on Tuesday in White House and called the meeting as very successful.

http://www.kurdpress.com/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=10320#Title=%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09US will provide weapon for Kurds if Baghdad refrains: Zalmay Khalilzad%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09