Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 127 of 127

Thread: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

  1. #121

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    Let's try this again.
    This is the issue you are trying to ignore here. Once again, you seem to ignore evidence:

    We are not talking about just any fleet of landing craft, we are talking about the second in NATO. Why does Turkey need so many amphibious ships so close to our islands? According to the institute, the fortification of the islands occurred only AFTER Turkey created the Aegean Army, back in 1975, IN VIOLATION of the treaty she had signed with Greece.

    As for TCG Bayraktar, it's not "just one ship", it's the FIRST such ship Turkey builds. There will be others.

    And again, I ask, why does Turkey need such a big amphibious, ie, offensive and NOT defensive fleet right in front of our islands? Why did Turkey violate the treaty for the demilitarisation in 1975, forcing Greece to fortify its own side of the borders, ie the islands? I know (and so does everyone else here) the reason, I just want to hear it from you.

    So, to recapitulate our good neighbor is sending its inexperienced troops and sailors, as well as pilots, to violate greek water and air space, it creates a war environment in the Aegean, it has leaders who speak of the "borders of their heart" and of "islands that belong to Turkey, because if you shout from the minor asian coast, they will hear you in the islands" (about the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far), it maintains and modernises an amphibious fleet right in front of our islands, and somehow, we are to believe that there is absolutely no cause for concern. This thing reminds me of halal butchering of an animal, when they feed it and give it water first, sweet talking it into a false sense of security.
    Turkey, having the second largest population in Europe, with largest land mass, and one of the longest coast lines border 3 different seas, is supposed to have a large navy. It is not, however, the largest navy in NATO. Italy, United Kingdom and France hav aircraft carriers. When they mention Turkey as the second largest force in the NATO they base it on purely personnel numbers, not vessels or capabilities. It's more of a measurement of population and modernization (or lack of it). Besides, you're conflating army with navy now...

    You clearly have no regard for proper use of words. The fact that there will be other ships, and there will be, doesn't really justify you to tell us that Turkey is amassing ships against Greece. It's an idiotic suggestion. I have no regard for such senseless and paranoid ideas.

    Why does any NATO or EU nation need similar vessels?

    How did Turkey violate the demilitarization in 1975?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  2. #122

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebaki View Post
    You can also use the S-300 very offensive like todays Russia is using S-400 very offensive against the NATO Coalition:









    This is very simple - The Aegean Army of Turkey is one the 4 standing Armies of Turkey with the 1,2,3 - itīs just called Aegean Army because of his Location nothing else (it was the former 4th Army from the Ottoman Empire - roots) - also it was build in 1975 after Operation Atilla which stopped the slaughtering of Turkish cypriots by the Greek cypriots which was backed by Greece which already was in the hand of an Dicatator after an successful coup d'etat and try it to annex Cyprus violently. But beside this it is very normal for Turkey to have an such an amphibious Force when you have locations like the Aegean, Black Sea, Mediterranean, Marmara Regions, but i must say in addition that the only amphibious Force in the Ranks of Turkish Army consists only 4500 Personel which is not large - the addition to this are just normal regular troops which you can also call the 4th Army of Turkey nothing else - Turkey is larger then Greece and not like Greece it has only Border with Bulgaria or other peaceful Nations, there are more "Hot" Regions next to the Turkish Border which are like an exploding gunpowder barrel.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphib..._Armed_Forces)
    The amphibious fleet is for one purpose and one purpose only, to make amphibious assaults on enemy islands or continental land mass. Greece knows that Turkey has a dangerous neighborhood in the Eastern borders, however the amphibious units can do little int he eastern borders of Turkey, because they are land mass, and at some point mountainous, for example the area of Kurdistan.
    Besides, Turkey did not place the amphibious units in the east, nor in the north, but in WEST, directly opposite Greek islands, indicating, beyond the shadow of a doubt that THIS is where the amphibious units are "aimed" at. Unlike air force, for example, which could be placed anywhere but can be used in the other side of the country if need be, because of the speed of modern aircraft, amphibious units are used in the place where they are located, ie in the west.

    amphibious Force in the Ranks of Turkish Army consists only 4500 Personel which is not large
    It is good enough to make a bridgehead in an island.



    @Setekh:
    Turkey, having the second largest population in Europe, with largest land mass, and one of the longest coast lines border 3 different seas, is supposed to have a large navy
    we, re not talking about "navy" in general, we are talking about AMPHIBIOUS UNITS.

    When they mention Turkey as the second largest force in the NATO they base it on purely personnel numbers, not vessels or capabilities.
    Again you are ignoring sources. Read the text I quoted:

    "The Fourth Army (The Aegean Army) has a peacetime force of 35000 combat personnel, and is equipped with landing craft and an amphibious capability which is second largest among NATO members"
    Amphibious Units.
    Amphibious Units.

    Am- ing -phibious ing units.

    The fact that there will be other ships, and there will be, doesn't really justify you to tell us that Turkey is amassing ships against Greece. It's an idiotic suggestion. I have no regard for such senseless and paranoid ideas.
    Of course, you are right, It's completely paranoid to think that, if country A is amassing amphibious units the numbers of which are second in NATO in breathing distance from the islands of country B, constantly threatens country B with violations of air space and sea borders, threatens to flood country B with "refugees", its leaders speak of the islands as "the borders of their heart", it is ridiculous and idiotic, not to mention paranoid to think that country A is planning an invasion, whoever would think of such paranoid idea?
    Oh wait:
    "Greek leaders say they are convinced that Turkey is in a dangerously expansionist mood. However debatable this proposition may be it would be mistaken to assume that Greek concern is artificially contrived or paranoid"
    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010001-7.pdf

    Oh look, the CIA just got paranoid!!!!
    Scratch building fantasy, historical etc. miniatures:

    http://miniaturesandstuff.wordpress.com/

    My avatar is a Dwarf Berserker.

  3. #123
    Hmmm's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,288

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    The amphibious fleet is for one purpose and one purpose only, to make amphibious assaults on enemy islands or continental land mass. Greece knows that Turkey has a dangerous neighborhood in the Eastern borders, however the amphibious units can do little int he eastern borders of Turkey, because they are land mass, and at some point mountainous, for example the area of Kurdistan.
    Besides, Turkey did not place the amphibious units in the east, nor in the north, but in WEST, directly opposite Greek islands, indicating, beyond the shadow of a doubt that THIS is where the amphibious units are "aimed" at. Unlike air force, for example, which could be placed anywhere but can be used in the other side of the country if need be, because of the speed of modern aircraft, amphibious units are used in the place where they are located, ie in the west.



    It is good enough to make a bridgehead in an island.



    @Setekh:


    we, re not talking about "navy" in general, we are talking about AMPHIBIOUS UNITS.



    Again you are ignoring sources. Read the text I quoted:



    Amphibious Units.
    Amphibious Units.

    Am- ing -phibious ing units.



    Of course, you are right, It's completely paranoid to think that, if country A is amassing amphibious units the numbers of which are second in NATO in breathing distance from the islands of country B, constantly threatens country B with violations of air space and sea borders, threatens to flood country B with "refugees", its leaders speak of the islands as "the borders of their heart", it is ridiculous and idiotic, not to mention paranoid to think that country A is planning an invasion, whoever would think of such paranoid idea?
    Oh wait:


    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010001-7.pdf

    Oh look, the CIA just got paranoid!!!!
    Apparently, anti-air defense missiles (SAM:s) placed on Crete*, which even from the easternmost point in Crete do not have the missile range to reach Turkey, are "offensive", but Turkey maintaining the second largest amphibious landing capability in NATO, right next to the highly exposed Greek islands, is a-OK and it's a totally "defensive" army. The fantasy world some people live in...

    *Because Turkey, rogue nation and bully that it is, threw a hissy fit like a 5-year old, since the notion that Cyprus would procure air defense and thus deny Turkey the ability to threaten Cyprus with impunity from the air was unacceptable to them.


    Now while I agree with you Ioannis that your country has reason to worry about this bully of a neighbour you're stuck with (courtesy of their size), I'd say the dismal Turkish performance in Al-Bab may serve to calm Greek fears a little. The embarassment there kind of dispelled any notion that the Turkish military is up to NATO standards.
    Last edited by Hmmm; Today at 09:53 AM.
    I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.

    Samuel Goldwyn

  4. #124

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    we, re not talking about "navy" in general, we are talking about AMPHIBIOUS UNITS.
    Again you are ignoring sources. Read the text I quoted:
    Amphibious Units.
    Amphibious Units.
    Am- ing -phibious ing units.
    Sigh... Yes, you got a source that can't differentiate between the navy and the army. Congrats. What Turkey has doesn't even compare to what France, United Kingdom, Italy or even apparently Netherlands. The ship from the news article you found is the only ship in the Turkish navy (not Turkish army) that is on par with the kind of ships those nations have. Do you understand that?


    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    Of course, you are right, It's completely paranoid to think that, if country A is amassing amphibious units the numbers of which are second in NATO in breathing distance from the islands of country B, constantly threatens country B with violations of air space and sea borders, threatens to flood country B with "refugees", its leaders speak of the islands as "the borders of their heart", it is ridiculous and idiotic, not to mention paranoid to think that country A is planning an invasion, whoever would think of such paranoid idea?
    Oh wait:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010001-7.pdf
    Oh look, the CIA just got paranoid!!!!
    It is quite paranoid and at this point quite stupid to argue what you argue here. You are posting a statement with the middle redacted. Very reliable I'm sure... Plus, you're citing a document from 1977. That's right after the Cyprus intervention. We're living in 2017. 40 years have passed. That's how paranoid and stupid your position here is.

    By the way, I asked you specific questions: Why does any NATO or EU nation need similar vessels? How did Turkey violate the demilitarization in 1975?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hmmm View Post
    Apparently, anti-air defense missiles (SAM:s) placed on Crete*, which even from the easternmost point in Crete do not have the missile range to reach Turkey, are "offensive", but Turkey maintaining the second largest amphibious landing capability in NATO, right next to the highly exposed Greek islands, is a-OK and it's a totally "defensive" army. The fantasy world some people live in...
    Turkey maintaining the second largest amphibious landing capability in NATO stationed right next to Greek islands? Based on what info? Fantasy indeed.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  5. #125
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    I don't think Greece should be all that worried about Turkey's ambhibious capabilities. Their navy is nowhere near the capacity and modernization they need to even THINK about large-scale amphibious invasion. They have the capacity to invade nearby islands at best. Also how much of that huge navy of theirs is even operational at this point? Turkey's economy isn't doing great either despite the governments' efforts, what with the plummeting currency, political turmoil and the such. It seems to me that there is little threat of offensive war now or in the foreseeable future from Turkey. What Turkey probably wants is to posture politically and provoke reactions from Greece and others, to create foreign political enemies to unite the people against.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  6. #126

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Maiar93, I 'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Please check the reply I gave to Hmmm as well:

    @Hmmm
    Apparently, anti-air defense missiles (SAM:s) placed on Crete*, which even from the easternmost point in Crete do not have the missile range to reach Turkey, are "offensive", but Turkey maintaining the second largest amphibious landing capability in NATO, right next to the highly exposed Greek islands, is a-OK and it's a totally "defensive" army. The fantasy world some people live in...
    It's quite extraordinary, isn't it? One of the most offensive tools, a landing fleet, is not important, and Greece should not be concerned that it is right outside its islands, but the presence of s-300 in an area that clearly covers ONLY Greek air space (and even leaves some of it outside) is a "provocation".

    Now while I agree with you Ioannis that your country has reason to worry about this bully of a neighbour you're stuck with (courtesy of their size), I'd say the dismal Turkish performance in Al-Bab may serve to calm Greek fears a little. The embarassment there kind of dispelled any notion that the Turkish military is up to NATO standards.
    From what I've seen, this is historically standard military procedure for the turkish military. The rationale is to throw in as much mass of troops as possible. At a certain point enemy defenses will break, and victory will be achieved, at huge, of course cost. My estimation is that a possible attack would take place on one island only (casualties would not allow for a second attack). My guess is that the island of Kastelorizo would be the island (it's not even near Imia, but it is a strategic problem for Turkey, as it completely blocks access to any EEZ they might have had.
    This is the EEZ map as it is:



    and this is what Turkey wants this map to change into:



    (deep blue colour is what Turkey claims should be).

    What stops Turkey from actually attempting to do so, is IMO Greek Naval capabilities, and the fact that much of turkish infrastructure is situated in the Aegean coast.

    @Setekh
    What Turkey has doesn't even compare to what France, United Kingdom, Italy or even apparently Netherlands.
    LOL, really? Netherlands?
    Let's see, a quick search:

    ~ 2,300 (1 Brigade/Regiment)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Marine_Corps

    2300 men. And 17 landing craft, with 48 fast attack craft.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nether...s#Landingcraft

    Let's see what Turkey has:

    4,500 men
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphib..._Armed_Forces)

    33 landing craft and 18 fast attack?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...h_Naval_Forces
    Shall we start comparing the displacement, the boats and landing craft carrying capabilities as well as the troop capacity of each force?

    And take into account the fact that the Netherlands has quite a few islands and is at many points separated by lengths of water (thus the fast attack craft), which make amphibious units essential in order to send reinforcement in certain of its own areas, something which is not valid in the case of Turkey (Turkey has next to no islands).

    But of course, you are right and we are wrong, as always.
    Scratch building fantasy, historical etc. miniatures:

    http://miniaturesandstuff.wordpress.com/

    My avatar is a Dwarf Berserker.

  7. #127

    Default Re: Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    LOL, really? Netherlands?
    Let's see, a quick search:

    ~ 2,300 (1 Brigade/Regiment)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Marine_Corps

    2300 men. And 17 landing craft, with 48 fast attack craft.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nether...s#Landingcraft

    Let's see what Turkey has:

    4,500 men
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphib..._Armed_Forces)

    33 landing craft and 18 fast attack?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...h_Naval_Forces
    Shall we start comparing the displacement, the boats and landing craft carrying capabilities as well as the troop capacity of each force?

    And take into account the fact that the Netherlands has quite a few islands and is at many points separated by lengths of water (thus the fast attack craft), which make amphibious units essential in order to send reinforcement in certain of its own areas, something which is not valid in the case of Turkey (Turkey has next to no islands).

    But of course, you are right and we are wrong, as always.
    Great example. Thanks for picking Netherlands. Netherlands, a nation that has a population that is 4 times smaller than that of Turkey, a nation with 19 times smaller surface area than that of Turkey, a nation with about 16 times shorter coast line length than that of Turkey, has half the navy men in its amphibious division. In its arsenal, Netherlands has HNLMS Rotterdam, 12,750 tonnes of displacement, commissioned in 1998, and HNLMS Johan de Witt, 16,800 tonnes of displacement, commissioned in 2007. The only ships comparable to these on the Turkish side are TCG Osman Gazi, 3,773 tonnes of displacement, commissioned in 1994, and TCG Bayraktar, 7,254 tonnes of displacement, that seems to be still going through tests. So, at best, we have Turkey reaching the capability of Netherlands these days... The idea that these ships are only applicable for islands is baseless and quite ridiculous. Turkey has a number of large islands and a long coastline...

    Logical and sensible statements are right, those that are stupid and illogical are wrong. Don't get confused, please. Trying to pass a CIA operatives assessment from 1977 to evaluate the situation of today is stupid and illogical, for example.

    You also still didn't answer my two very simple questions. Why does any NATO or EU nation need similar vessels? How did Turkey violate the demilitarization in 1975?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •