Turkey Indirectly Fights Against Syria – Syrian Official

Donate

According to a high-ranking official at the Syrian Defense Ministry, Ankara continues to support terrorist groups in Aleppo, fighting against the Syrian Army, and does not coordinate its actions on al-Bab city with the Syrian Army.

Turkey Indirectly Fights Against Syria – Syrian Official

Photo: YouTube / Orient News

Turkey is technically in a state of war with Syria, as Ankara does not coordinate its actions with the Syrian Army in al-Bab city, located in the northeastern part of Aleppo province, Arab media reported, citing a high-ranking official at the Syrian Defense Ministry, Samir Sulayman.

“Considering its campaign against terrorist groups in Aleppo, the Syrian Army is indirectly fighting against Turkey,” as Ankara is on the opposite side and provides support to terrorists in the same region, Sulayman said.

Last week, sources close to the Syrian opposition said that the Stinger air-defense systems were deployed by the Turkish Army in areas near al-Bab city, located in the northeast of Aleppo province.

A journalist with close links to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Ahmad al-Khatib, wrote on his twitter page that Turkey’s affiliated forces, deployed near the city of al-Bab, are being equipped with the Stinger man-portable air-defense systems.

On Saturday, Turkish media also reported that a number of trucks, carrying air-defense systems, were moving from Oguzeli region in Gaziantep towards the Syrian borders.

Tensions between Ankara and Damascus have increased so much that Syrian sources reported about preemptive strike of the Syrian Army in the northern parts of Syria aimed on blocking of attempts of the Turkish Armed Forces to create a buffer zone in the region.

According to experts, there is a high possibility of direct clashes between the Syrian and Turkish armies, as the opposition forces, sponsored by Turkey and backed up by tanks of the Turkish Armed Forces, have already announced their intention to take al-Bab city, which is one of the main strongholds of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in the area. At the same time, Syrian troops continue to advance in the region in order to surround the city from its southern and western sides.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Marek Pejović

    Ohoho, it’s heating up. the only problem is “the number of delivery means” the SAA has to assault – stingers dont work against 155mm howitzers nor against Uragan missiles. also, no side might be flying over Aleppo as there’s S-300 system around. and im pretty sure T-72 Ural and T-90 can gut the M-60A3. not to mention syrian fighting experience and motivation to fight against invaders.
    and not to mention just how pathetic turkish army has become recently. beaten and gutted by purges, and demoralized by being sent outside Turkey.
    btw. good thing SAA and YPG are cozying up to each other lately. it might prove very useful.
    either way, should Erdogan really attack, it’s going to be the biggest military political blunder since Saudis invaded yemen.

    • hhabana

      Interesting analysis. This situation with Turkey and Kurds is going to be very interesting to watch and who works with whom. What makes things even more dramatic is what President Trump will do once he gets into office. Obama has just created chaos in U.S. and abroad. If an alliance between Putin and Trump takes place, then Erdogan may be left in the cold by himself as rest of NATO alliance will be stumped how to handle the situation, but will most likely follow U.S.

      • Marek Pejović

        i believe Erdogan is already out and cold even since of failed coup. he’s a loose cannon, but unfortunately with enough resources to keep ticking…for now. i have repeatedly said that his soft underbelly are the conscripts – once they start dying like flies fighting the Kurds and SAA on foreign soil, the public opinion WILL start changing. even with masses of stupid, uneducated, religious elitist turks which are bedrock of his support.

    • MeMadMax

      Actually, the T-72 is on par with the M60, but… the real proof is in the crews.
      SAA is battle hardened after 5 years of war. I’m sure they can take on a green turkish army.

      But make no mistake, kurds are backstabbers, along with the turks.

      • Depends on what T-72 model you talk about.

        • Marek Pejović

          well, i’d think Ural, if we’re talking about the 105th division of the Republican guard which was part of Al-Bab offensive, if i remember correct.

      • Hunter1324

        The main advantage of the M60 over the T-72 is i’ts Fire Control System. But the upgraded T-72’s and T-90’s used by Syria should bridge the gap.

        Still those Sabra’s were developed in the 80’s so my guess is that Israel was quite confident to be able to counter Syria’s T-72M’s with them.

        • John Whitehot

          normally the M60 fire control would be not superior to the T-72 if we are talking about the unimproved models. In Syria, turks deployed their improved M-60 Sabra, but most Syrian T-72s have been constantly updated. Moreover, we have seen how the Sabra is vulnerable to ATGMs, even older ones. And another thing, turkish crews are totally green, risk their lives in foreign land, and for a cause they don’t necessarily approve. Syrian crews have been fighting for several years, know their equipment, and have shown the ability to constantly develop and improve tactics. They also will have their combat spirit at the maximum, if their country is invaded by turkey and I assure you, there is a large numbers of them that are itching to kill turks, after what they have done to their country.

          • Hunter1324

            The M60A3 TTS deffinitivelly has a better fire control system than any Sovier Era T-72 mass produced derivative, though.

            The Sabra deffinitivelly has a pretty good FCS but I do agree that it seems just as vulnerable to ATGM’s as the T-72A and T-72M1.

          • John Whitehot

            “soviet Era T-72s” get upgraded with new FCS like I said. I don’t think there are T-72A in Syria, not sure about T-72M1 but if they are present they are most def upgraded. The rest, is idle chatter, there is absolutely no point in discussing tanks fire controls because what happens on the terrain is determined 99% by other parameters. Modern tanks have the ability to hit targets on the move, while moving theirselves. The rest goes down to the crew training and a ton of tactical considerations based on the situation. Combat engagements are nothing like tank biathlon and if I could choose in the current theater, I’d pick being in a Syrian T-72 with a Syrian crew (whatever upgrade) over a Turkish Sabra 99 times out of 100.

          • PZIVJ1943

            I would think the Sabra should hold up pretty good against a ATGM hit. They appear to have spaced armor built around an M60 turret? The turks also have many LEOPARD 1 & 2. I don’t think Erdogan is crazy enough to seriously engage SAA forces (their air cover would be shot or shut down). But he does want to take Al Bab. The SAA should sit back and let FSA/TU and ISUS fight it out over this city, and move into the area after ISUS is in retreat. The SAA does not have to occupy the city, just it’s outskirts.

          • John Whitehot

            I thought that as well but no, so far all the vids I’ve seen about destroyed Turkish tanks (and they are starting to pile up) show Sabras. In some case the tanks are in hull down position and get destroyed by a direct hit in the turret. They seem prone to catch fire rather easily.

          • Marek Pejović

            very interesting analysis! to which extent do you think any “serious” conflict between SAA and Turkey would get “hot”?

          • PZIVJ1943

            Assumed TU #1 priority is to prevent link-up of “N syrian Kurdish state” This task is almost complete. Erdogan tough talk is probably meant for home audience. Any major move into N Syria could be met by interdiction of supply lines.The FSA don’t seem to be that powerfull, they usually took areas that where vacated by ISUS. The SAA will defend themselves if provoked, but have no interest in situation getting hot. They have too many other areas to contend with. Maybe there will be more mysterious explosions in TU area (who did that?!) Tension with Kurdish areas will most likely go on and on. Erdogan has stated his intentions of taking Manbij area, this would piss off US and maybe stop SDF/KURD drive on Raqqa. Hoping Erdogan will not miss-calculate situation. He understands that SAA is backed by large RU air, anti-air, and naval force.

      • Joseph Scott

        The US Army’s 1979 report completely disagrees with you on that. The M1 was built because the US Army felt the T-72 completely outclassed the M-60.

        • MeMadMax

          My brother was a M1 driver in the army, he completely disagrees with that statement….

          • Joseph Scott

            Well, if you happen to recall anything specific he has said on the matter, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be interested. Here is the report: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

          • MeMadMax

            Ok so this is what he said:

            If you were to take 1000 T72s and 1000 M60’s and plop them in the middle of a field facing each other, the T72 will win because of the auto loader, it can put more shells downrange at a constant firing rate. The loader in a M60 will get tired.

            That is what the article is geared for, a soviet era brawl.

            However, that is not the case in this instance. In the todays world, and in most battles, you have platoons of tanks fighting 5 vs 5. In this instance the most skilled crews that display the most teamwork win. The syrians win because the turks are less battle hardened/trained. However, if you pit a syrian T72 crew with an american M60 crew, the americans win.

          • Joseph Scott

            Well, now you are talking crew quality. Crew quality trumps equipment every time. But, while yes, American crews are better trained than Syrian crews, the Turkish are also generally considerably better trained than Syrians. The Turkish have the second best army regionally, after Israel, while Syrians are on the low end, better than Iraqis and Saudis, but inferior to Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. Granted, Erdogan has been destroying the very traditions that made the Turkish any good, and I’m sure they are pretty demoralised, so they are declining.

            On the other hand, battle experience isn’t as good a teacher as popularly thought. You generally have to have decent leadership in place to make sure lessons from combat are understood, applied, and applied in a manner than improves fighting ability. Without that, people learn to survive at the expense of the mission. They become better survivors, but remain unimpressive soldiers. Have the Syrians found the leadership to do that? Maybe. Having Russian instructors may help. Having Iranian and Hezbollah instructors may help more, for purely cultural reasons. But I wouldn’t automatically assume, at this point, that the Syrians would have an edge on the Turks.

          • MeMadMax

            Disagree. Battle experience is the only useful teacher. Take the saudi’s for example. Lots of money, lots of modern high-tech equipment, all the best training from all over the world…

            Getting their asses kicked by guys that run around in flip-flops.

          • Joseph Scott

            It’s a commonly held point of view, but I assure you that if you do your research, you will find that it is not supported by either the evidence of military history, or the nature of human psychology.

            The Saudis are inept for cultural reasons. Read what their western support contractors have to say about that.

            Let me show you some examples were veterans were trounced by well-trained by inexperienced forces:

            The 1st Barbary War. The pirates of Tripoli had extensive combat experience. They attacked ships, including armed ships, all the time. The US Navy hadn’t fought anybody in years. Yet starting with the first engagement of USS Enterprise vs. the Tripoli, the battles tended to be one-sided victories for the US, except in vastly unfavourable situations like the sea-based siege of Tripoli. (Ships are entirely outmatched by forts.)

            At the Battle of Rorke’s Drift in 1879, the entire Zulu force had been in battle, and vastly outnumbered the British, whereas the British troops defending were mostly men of the 2nd Battalion. 24th Foot. As the reserve battalion, they were kept at home and used as the source of replacements for the deployed 1st Battalion. Most were young and only months out of training. (And before you mention guns, contrary to popular belief, nearly the entire Zulu army had modern rifles. They were just very badly trained in their use, and combat didn’t fix that. Also, the Zulus found the British, even the inexperienced fellows at Rorke’s Drift, to be superior to them in hand-to-hand combat. Combat didn’t fix that problem either.)

            The Iraqi Army in 1991 had plenty of people with experience in the Iran-Iraq War. By contrast, except for special forces, Rangers and the 82nd Airborne, most US troops had never been in battle. Some of their E-8s, E-9s, and O-6s and up had been to Vietnam, but everybody below that had never heard a shot fired in anger. It was a one-sided massacre though.

            The Somalis who fought 1st SFOD-D and the rangers during Gothic Serpent in 1993 were almost all veterans of years of civil war. While many of the delta Operators had been in combat, most of the rangers hadn’t. Yet, the Body count was 19 vs. between 750 and 2000, in favour of the smaller and less experienced force.

            Good training and leadership matters far more than experience.

            Now let me tell you why: the human being has four basic survival responses to threats. We fight, we posture, we evade (including freezing up, which is a form of evasion designed to camouflage you from motion-based vision) and we submit. Of those four responses, around 2% of people are naturally inclined to fight. The rest posture, evade or surrender by instinct. Exposed to combat, someone who has been inadequately trained will fall back on instinct, and will thus typically use one of those combat-ineffective three survival options. If they then survive combat, their successful use of posturing, evading or submission will be reinforced in their brain, because it accomplished it’s objective. When badly trained troops get thrown into battle, and find their training and leadership isn’t up to the circumstances, they become adept at shirking, at posturing without risking themselves, at hiding without getting caught hiding. Being terrified out of their minds doesn’t teach them good tactics, doesn’t teach them to utilise their weapons properly, doesn’t teach them the right mix of subterfuge and stealth, and sudden intense aggression. Good training does that.

  • 888mladen .

    “On Saturday, Turkish media also reported that a number of trucks,
    carrying air-defense systems, were moving from Oguzeli region in
    Gaziantep towards the Syrian borders”. If they enter the territory of the Syrian sovereign state illegally then they must be destroyed. It requires immediate action.

  • ZeroKid

    SAA still focus with aleppo, if already done ( I hope end of this december), next target is al-bab. I want to see what will turkey doing if Syaf and Ruaf send JDAM to their fake rebel…