Turkish Peace Operations in Syria (Operation Olive Branch) Updates & Discussions

[Angry Studios]

Yes they had this in mind and said it openly and they are hundred of times stronger than pkk that you struggle with right now without aircraft strikes they would have taken the whole syria yes you should be worried

I don't reckon Isis would succeed in an mountain warfare, They just still haven't seen the true force of the Turkish Armed Force in Syria.

 

[Khagan1923]

I don't reckon Isis would succeed in an mountain warfare, They just still haven't seen the true force of the Turkish Armed Force in Syria.

Our Army would wipe the floor with the whole of syria and iraq if we invaded in full force and without Russia or US intervening.

 

[f1000n]

Our Army would wipe the floor with the whole of syria and iraq if we invaded in full force and without Russia or US intervening.

No it won't wipe the floor, somehow people on PDF never learn.

This level of arrogance and constant overestimation of your troops abilities whilst looking down on us has faded slowly after the Euphrates shield operation showed TAF is just as vulnerable to IS as other armies fighting them, that whilst the EUP shield operation is far from IS 'heartland' and nowhere near the toughness of battles such as Fallujah, Ramadi, Baiji which was full of experienced Chechens and the current OP in Mosul.

Neither would the Pakistani army 'wipe the floor' with IS. There's no wiping in urban warfare, it's a tough battle against an enemy with radical terrorists who use armored VBIED's. Americans encountered nothing of that in Iraq, the battle of Fallujah in 2004 which they called a heavy battle was nothing compared to today's urban battles. No one wipes them in urban warfare without taking many casualties unless they carpet bomb the whole town, but that is delivering victory to IS.

This idea that you can wipe everyone in Iraq and Syria is nothing but nationalistic bullshit, the other side can be just as motivated by nationalism and/or religion, you have no idea how well they're trained and experienced they are.

 

[Kebapçı Erhan]

Guys lets be realistic, in warfare it's all about tactics and technology both of which are the result of experience. We were able to hone our urban warfare capabilities this past year when combating the PKK in many South Eastern cities but there was a good amount of losses on our side simply because of the nature of urban warfare. The fact is that the entrenched terrorists have the advantage. Air power and tanks doesn't do much in urban warfare unless you are willing to flatten the city which of course then holds little value because what makes cities important are their population and production capability.

I think we need to reform our armed forces, unfortunately the armored elements are still stuck in the Cold War, not only from a technological perspective but also from a doctrine point of view. Personally I wouldn't use many tanks in Syria but the bulk of our Force in Syria is armored forces. We need systems like ACV with mounted Cirit, Excalibur type artillery shells, we need remote controlled UGV's with 25mm gun. We need more Bayraktar UCAV's.

The millions of refugees in Turkey must also be effectively utilized. We should already have a force of 20,000 fully armed and equipped Syrians ready to enter the fray. Of course moderates and people friendly to us. We have a ton of M-48s and m-113's sitting in storage, this is the time to donate them to moderate forces for use.

 

[Neptune]

Guys lets be realistic, in warfare it's all about tactics and technology both of which are the result of experience. We were able to hone our urban warfare capabilities this past year when combating the PKK in many South Eastern cities but there was a good amount of losses on our side simply because of the nature of urban warfare. The fact is that the entrenched terrorists have the advantage. Air power and tanks doesn't do much in urban warfare unless you are willing to flatten the city which of course then holds little value because what makes cities important are their population and production capability.

I think we need to reform our armed forces, unfortunately the armored elements are still stuck in the Cold War, not only from a technological perspective but also from a doctrine point of view. Personally I wouldn't use many tanks in Syria but the bulk of our Force in Syria is armored forces. We need systems like ACV with mounted Cirit, Excalibur type artillery shells, we need remote controlled UGV's with 25mm gun. We need more Bayraktar UCAV's.

What would you "use" in Syria then?

In conventional warfare, the wise and the advanced may have the upper hand. But clearly in regards to counterterrorism, morale and motivation is the driven force from a military/police limited approach. You can make them disgust their life by not even properly being able to supply them and ship them meals 3-times a day, every day he goes out to capture the streets back, he will question why the fuvck he is doing it. But also you have no idea how happy and motivated the SOF guys become when reading a letter from a 7 year old kid that they don't even know, right after we gave a final salute to their fallen comrade.

TSK never lose a conflict when it had the full support of the nation.

 

[Baybars Han]

No it won't wipe the floor, somehow people on PDF never learn.

This level of arrogance and constant overestimation of your troops abilities whilst looking down on us has faded slowly after the Euphrates shield operation showed TAF is just as vulnerable to IS as other armies fighting them, that whilst the EUP shield operation is far from IS 'heartland' and nowhere near the toughness of battles such as Fallujah, Ramadi, Baiji which was full of experienced Chechens and the current OP in Mosul.

Neither would the Pakistani army 'wipe the floor' with IS. There's no wiping in urban warfare, it's a tough battle against an enemy with radical terrorists who use armored VBIED's. Americans encountered nothing of that in Iraq, the battle of Fallujah in 2004 which they called a heavy battle was nothing compared to today's urban battles. No one wipes them in urban warfare without taking many casualties unless they carpet bomb the whole town, but that is delivering victory to IS.

This idea that you can wipe everyone in Iraq and Syria is nothing but nationalistic bullshit, the other side can be just as motivated by nationalism and/or religion, you have no idea how well they're trained and experienced they are.

Are you for real? I don't agree or disagree with wiping the floor but you comparing OES with iraqi and Syrian army's full on battlefield comparison. In our operation in Syria there is hardly any sizeable Turkish troops, they are all nearly fsa rebels not to mention your comparing one case where iraqi or Syrian army using all its inventory and OES where there is very limited tanks and other support. We had very big urban warfare experience this year in the East fighting pkk who had stockpiled weapons in the so called peace process, they literally had weapons in houses and shops and also they pit thousands of bombs. The army cleared all of them out while limiting civilians death to very low numbers.

There is a massssiveee difference between supporting rebels on the ground with some armoured units and very little soldiers and whole armies fighting in their country. Also with limited fsa rebels the OES is actually a good success especially the first month gained alot of land quickly..


If we went full on against isis they would be smashed. I'm talking about hundred thousand+ soldiers, thousand tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters, jets, artillery.

 

[f1000n]

Are you for real? I don't agree or disagree with wiping the floor but you comparing OES with iraqi and Syrian army's full on battlefield comparison. In our operation in Syria there is hardly any sizeable Turkish troops, they are all nearly fsa rebels not to mention your comparing one case where iraqi or Syrian army using all its inventory and OES where there is very limited tanks and other support. We had very big urban warfare experience this year in the East fighting pkk who had stockpiled weapons in the so called peace process, they literally had weapons in houses and shops and also they pit thousands of bombs. The army cleared all of them out while limiting civilians death to very low numbers.

There is a massssiveee difference between supporting rebels on the ground with some armoured units and very little soldiers and whole armies fighting in their country. Also with limited fsa rebels the OES is actually a good success especially the first month gained alot of land quickly..

Yes i'm for real.

The urban warfare in the east against the PKK was in a town not comparable to the size of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baiji let alone Mosul, the city where the PKK was fought was reduced to rubble. Also the PKK is not IS, IS was running all over the PKK(YPG) they aren't comparable in strength and equipment.

If we went full on against isis they would be smashed. I'm talking about hundred thousand+ soldiers, thousand tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters, jets, artillery.[

Jets and artillery become almost unusable in urban warfare as IS use the locals as human shields. It forces you to use block to block clearing methods using infantry, tanks can provide support to the infantry but IS has many ATGW, so far they've taken out many tanks with those, including Turkish tanks. Your most effective and usable asset in such a war will be infantry and they will pay with blood in big numbers to clean such towns, just as the ISF pays with blood. Would you win such an urban battle? Yes, just as the ISF has been winning these battles.

'Wiping the floor' is the wrong naming for that. What makes you think you would perform so much better? Most here who have been saying this all along will reply with nationalistic nonsense. Strategy would affect the battle a lot more, TAF having many tanks and IFV's might be able to launch a different type of strategy by storming the city with a 'shock and awe' strategy to overwhelm the enemy securing a quicker victory, but that again might be costly to civillians.

 

[Oublious]

Yes i'm for real.

The urban warfare in the east against the PKK was in a town not comparable to the size of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baiji let alone Mosul, the city where the PKK was fought was reduced to rubble. Also the PKK is not IS, IS was running all over the PKK(YPG) they aren't comparable in strength and equipment.


Jets and artillery become almost unusable in urban warfare as IS use the locals as human shields. It forces you to use block to block clearing methods using infantry, tanks can provide support to the infantry but IS has many ATGW, so far they've taken out many tanks with those, including Turkish tanks. Your most effective and usable asset in such a war will be infantry and they will pay with blood in big numbers to clean such towns, just as the ISF pays with blood. Would you win such an urban battle? Yes, just as the ISF has been winning these battles.

'Wiping the floor' is the wrong naming for that. What makes you think you would perform so much better? Most here who have been saying this all along will reply with nationalistic nonsense. Strategy would affect the battle a lot more, TAF having many tanks and IFV's might be able to launch a different type of strategy by storming the city with a 'shock and awe' strategy to overwhelm the enemy securing a quicker victory, but that again might be costly to civillians.

So why are you asking a lot of airstrikes from usa? Stop with your stories...

 

[Baybars Han]

Yes i'm for real.

The urban warfare in the east against the PKK was in a town not comparable to the size of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baiji let alone Mosul, the city where the PKK was fought was reduced to rubble. Also the PKK is not IS, IS was running all over the PKK(YPG) they aren't comparable in strength and equipment.


Jets and artillery become almost unusable in urban warfare as IS use the locals as human shields. It forces you to use block to block clearing methods using infantry, tanks can provide support to the infantry but IS has many ATGW, so far they've taken out many tanks with those, including Turkish tanks. Your most effective and usable asset in such a war will be infantry and they will pay with blood in big numbers to clean such towns, just as the ISF pays with blood. Would you win such an urban battle? Yes, just as the ISF has been winning these battles.

'Wiping the floor' is the wrong naming for that. What makes you think you would perform so much better? Most here who have been saying this all along will reply with nationalistic nonsense. Strategy would affect the battle a lot more, TAF having many tanks and IFV's might be able to launch a different type of strategy by storming the city with a 'shock and awe' strategy to overwhelm the enemy securing a quicker victory, but that again might be costly to civillians.

OK, firstly there is hugeee differences in my opinion between the forces, NUMBER 1 is morale and motivation which is absolutely crucial. If we get back to real world the iraqi national unity and the soldiers thought process what can we say. I'm not saying this as an insult so don't get offended.

The Turkish army wouldn't have ever become like the examples of Syrian or iraqi army there's a massive difference. Their motivation, morale is completely different. Secondly pkk wasn't in one town, there was literally tens of town the army cleared until they were finished. Also nobody said we wouldn't have casualties, but the motivation and morale means we would never end. You know the first thing a soldier says even after he loses his body parts in hospital by a bomb from pkk? When am I going to go back next to my friends to the battlefield!

Anyways, these are all scenarios and I hope Iraq defeats isis so that they can unify the country after. I don't think isis is that hard to defeat and is over exaggerated.

 

[f1000n]

So why are you asking a lot of airstrikes from usa? Stop with your stories...

Follow CJTF-OIR daily releases to know their number of strikes. Their number of strikes in Iraq is still less than the number of daily sorties by IQAF and the Iraqi army aviation. Though does it matter that they support us? Iraq's air force lacks the big number of equipment, for your information the US air force supports Euphrates shield as well.

OK, firstly there is hugeee differences in my opinion between the forces, NUMBER 1 is morale and motivation which is absolutely crucial. If we get back to real world the iraqi national unity and the soldiers thought process what can we say. I'm not saying this as an insult so don't get offended.

Morale and motivation, these 2 psychological attributes which exist in every human and are not constant are only high in the brains of a certain nationality? The PMU and ISF have liberated too many towns for anyone to tag them as unmotivated and low morale.

The Turkish army wouldn't have ever become like the examples of Syrian or iraqi army there's a massive difference. Their motivation, morale is completely different. Secondly pkk wasn't in one town, there was literally tens of town the army cleared until they were finished.

The TAF experienced partial collapse last summer when treason/coup was conducted. In 2014 the IA experienced a far larger act of treason, in Iraq's case the 'opponent/other side' weren't civilians and the police, they were armed terrorists which are called IS who filled the void just as in Turkey's case civillians filled the void and took over tanks. What if that wasn't a minor coup but treason on a far bigger scale and the opponent was IS, what would've happened? Besides, that is more of a political collapse rather than military collapse.

Also nobody said we wouldn't have casualties, but the motivation and morale means we would never end. You know the first thing a soldier says even after he loses his body parts in hospital by a bomb from pkk? When am I going to go back next to my friends to the battlefield!

Once again, that's not exclusive to TAF. There's old people and wounded people fighting against IS in Iraq and Syria, some who have been wounded over a dozen times as they've been fighting the insurgency since 2004.

Anyways, these are all scenarios and I hope Iraq defeats isis so that they can unify the country after. I don't think isis is that hard to defeat and is over exaggerated.

They will be defeated in Syria and Iraq but at a cost of soldiers life's given that urban battles are deadly especially against terrorists who use civs as human shields. They're also time taking, in the 1991 Gulf war big battles were fought in shorter time between large conventional armies whilst the US took 6 weeks for Fallujah in 2004 against an enemy that would be described a joke compared to IS of today.

 

[brokk]

......

When and if the Turkish armed forces enter Iraq and or Syria for real war and not a proxy war or for training people in camps, then some will realize the difference and their own insignificance, till then it is merely a pissing match of who pees further... the amount of soldiers that Turkey can put into these countries are more than a thousand times more than the US ever could put into them, that is before I begin to mention Turks not being strangers to the area and people, favorable terrain and morale against both places and against those who are available to fight on the opposite side, ( i.e. ISIS/DAESH is merely a tiny force, and yet it is holding for so long large parts of both these countries, and causing casualties in skirmishes against all of these US uniformed and armed 'cool' looking useless soldiers that run time and time again leaving their weapon behind... ) and lastly the non-existent air-forces or real armed forces of these countries..

Yes sure it would probably be a bloody war, and Turkey will probably loose 100K+ soldiers, but when has that stopped the Turks? It took ~40K Turkish troops (that were poorly armed in comparison to their current state) to go over a mountain range, and clean out the North of Cyprus in 1 month, that against an enemy of similar size, and which surrounds two sides of Turkey... with 498 soldiers lost, 1000+ wounded, and a embargo against Turkey after that, which continues to this day in form of EU talks blockades.

In both Iraq and in Syria there will probably be a lot more locals supporting Turkey, even if some Turkish allies suddenly go enemy, others wouldn't, so unless they want to go WW3, it will always be a stalemate, which means response against Turkey would be an embargo and not war from them. Other considerations are Iran or Arabic countries, would they go to war with Turkey? directly, I doubt it.. indirectly definitely, but their proxies aren't really up to the task.

So considering that this whole thing will be extremely ruthless, yes, I would say that Turkey "steam rolling" or "flattening" countries if it declared an all-out war is a correct phrase.

 

[Khagan1923]

Iranian terrorists still trying to kill civilians in aleppo, they broke the truce the second time in two days. These are the monsters the US supports and these are the people the ypg works with. Good Job obama. They even don't obey their master russia anymore cause they have grown delusional. Genociadel maniacs, all this blood is on the hands of kerry and obama.


On the Al-Bab front: There are heavy clashes around the Sheikh Aqil hill inside Al-Bab and 3 SVBIED have been destroyed by ES Forces.

 

[OguzSenturk]

https://twitter.com/x/status/809748113468616706

 

[f1000n]

When and if the Turkish armed forces enter Iraq and or Syria for real war and not a proxy war or for training people in camps, then some will realize the difference and their own insignificance, till then it is merely a pissing match of who pees further... the amount of soldiers that Turkey can put into these countries are more than a thousand times more than the US ever could put into them, that is before I begin to mention Turks not being strangers to the area and people, favorable terrain and morale against both places and against those who are available to fight on the opposite side, ( i.e. ISIS/DAESH is merely a tiny force, and yet it is holding for so long large parts of both these countries, and causing casualties in skirmishes against all of these US uniformed and armed 'cool' looking useless soldiers that run time and time again leaving their weapon behind... ) and lastly the non-existent air-forces or real armed forces of these countries..

You don't check before you say something. The US deployed 600.000 of their troops to Saudi-Iraq border in 1990.They sent near 250K to Iraq in 2003. Are you capable of deploying 600K outside of Turkey?

Those soldiers have taken hundreds of towns, killed tens of thousands of IS and prevented IS attacks abroad. Yet useless, says you in your comfortable house?

Yes sure it would probably be a bloody war, and Turkey will probably loose 100K+ soldiers, but when has that stopped the Turks? It took ~40K Turkish troops (that were poorly armed in comparison to their current state) to go over a mountain range, and clean out the North of Cyprus in 1 month, that against an enemy of similar size, and which surrounds two sides of Turkey... with 498 soldiers lost, 1000+ wounded, and a embargo against Turkey after that, which continues to this day in form of EU talks blockades.

In both Iraq and in Syria there will probably be a lot more locals supporting Turkey, even if some Turkish allies suddenly go enemy, others wouldn't, so unless they want to go WW3, it will always be a stalemate, which means response against Turkey would be an embargo and not war from them. Other considerations are Iran or Arabic countries, would they go to war with Turkey? directly, I doubt it.. indirectly definitely, but their proxies aren't really up to the task.

So considering that this whole thing will be extremely ruthless, yes, I would say that Turkey "steam rolling" or "flattening" countries if it declared an all-out war is a correct phrase.

Steam rolling/flattening in this kind of war means massacring people. The ISF could very well speed up operations by using heavy artillery and air power to destroy whatever obstacle there is but that would cause many civ casualties. North of Cyprus is a tiny place, that's like Iraq annexing Kuwait in 2 days back in 1990, the embargo placed on Iraq lasted over a decade and was far heavier than that on Turkey's, forget that tiny operation. This idea you have that you're better than the rest doesn't mean anything, your choice if you want to dwell in the thought that you're a lot better, nothing to prove it though.

 

[OguzSenturk]

Can you please keep your off-topic discussion in somewhere else? People checks this topic to see updates about ES operation would get confused. Thanks ^^