Turkish Forces Advance (Again) On Al-Bab. More Photos Of Military Equipment Abadoned By Turkish Army & Militants

It was Saladin a Kurd NOT a Turkey That defeated the crusaders.

Seljucs and Ottomans fought against the crusaders for more than 900 years. Kurds also fought side by side with the Turks like Arabs and other Muslim nations. Salahaddin’s family and army was half Turkish as I know but it does not matter.

Turks are pretty tough when they’re facing Armenian and Assyrian women and children, but they didn’t do to well against the Sobieski.

Let’s face it, your beloved would be caliph’s days are numbered. Half the country hates him and the Kurds are kicking ass. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people finally turn on him. You heard it here first. Oh, and Istanbul WILL be Constantinople once again. AND the descration of the Hagia Sophia will be cleansed and Christianity restored. Merry Christmas.

Tank you (not thank you. tank you. hope to drive a tank over you) and merry Christmas to you.Have you been to Istanbul? You can come as a tourist and visit Hagia Sophia if you really like. I think you should, because one of your grandfathers was probably a Turkish soldier. I can sense it. You write very agressively like a barbarian.

P.s: Jan Sobieski, a brave man indeed, made a mistake and helped the Germans who then slaughtered millions of Poles.

Warriors of the moon god.

Shut up moron. Dumb yanks are not wanted in this discussion.

No, not moon God. My infidel grandfathers used to believe in the Sky God before converting to Islam. P.S: Turks died in Korea defending the retreating UN armies. The reason is that we had to be a part of Nato at that time as the Russians have threatened us.

Get off this site. Shouldn’t you be kissing Jewish ass somewhere.

By the way, I always appreciated the Turkish contribution to the fight in Korea. Now the Islamic disease has really taken hold and given the world Erdogan.

‘Islamic disease’…spoken like a true phallus worshiping Jew. Or you could be one of those mis-guided Christians that cant make up their minds if Jesus, peace be upon him, is God, the son of God or what. Or maybe your an Evangelical Zionist Christian. Whatever you are, your an ignorant moron.

As a matter of historical record, the Turks have only been effective fighters in two periods: first when they were still a nomadic horse people, employing Mongol doctrine. Growing up in the saddle, learning to use powerful composite bows from a young age, and having a very mobile force with decent armour, and flexible tactics and a good mix of ranged and shock ability made them dangerous. Once they settled down into an empire, and gave up their nomadic ways, their fighting ability declined steadily. Their entire Imperial system was too corrupt to maintain a decently trained force, and one need only point to the Janissaries as an example of how far their military fell.

Nonetheless, throughout the 14th Century, they required a more than 2 to 1 numerical superiority to defeat the Byzantines at all the battles they fought. The Bosnians managed to beat them even with such odds. If you use the European’s own force estimate for their side, and the Ottoman’s force estimate for themselves, they had an almost 4 to 1 superiority at Nicopolis, and that against a composite, multi-force army, which almost invariably have severe command and control problems. Only against the Serbians did the Turks win without numerical superiority in this century.

In the 15th century, they had 2 to 1 odds against the coalition force at Varna, and Kosovo. The Albanians crushed them despite more than 3 to 1 Turkish superiority at the 1st and 2nd battles of Mokra and at Ujebardha, likewise the Moldovians as Vasdlui, and the Wallachians at Targoviste. The Turks required 100 to 1 odds to storm Shkodra, and still lost 10 times the troops. The Hungarians beta them at Kenyermezi. The Turks required 50% greater fleet size to beat the Venetians at Zonchio.

In the 16th Century, they had 2 to 1 odds when they beat the Persians at Chaldiran. They had 2.5 to 1 when the beat another clumsy Hungarian-Imperial-Polish coalition force at Mohacs, not to mention 4 to 1 superiority in artillery. They had massive superiority when they beat the small Spanish force in the naval action at Formentera. Buda was won through pure deception. They had better than 2 to 1 odds at Ponza against the Genoese, and French the Christian alliance when they won a help. They had better than 3 to 2 galley numbers against at Djerbe. Their small margin of superiority couldn’t save them from crushing defeat at Lepanto. They had nearly 3 to 1 superiority when the HRE and Croats smashed them at Sisak. They had nearly 7 to 1 odds when they Wallachians defeated them at Calugareni. They needed 2 to 1 odds to beat another awkward coalition of Europeans at Keresztes, and still had the heavier losses. In that whole century they only ever won with even odds or outnumbered against the Holy League at Preveza, and against the useless Mameluks.

In the 17th Century, at Nagykanizsa, the ‘Turkish’ garrison of the had were actually Janissaries, and therefore European, vesides havign fortress walls and a 2.5 to 1 artillery superiority. They had 2 to 1 or better superiority when the Georgians beat them at Tashiskari. They had better than 2 to 1 when they beat the Poles and Lithuanians at Cecora, while they had between 2.5 and 3 to 1 when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth turned the tables on them and crushed them at Khotyn. They had nearly 5 times the ships when the Knights of Malta and Venetians beat them at Focchies, and nearly 3 times as many when the Europeans won at the 1st Battle of the Dardenelles, better than twice as many when the lost the 2nd Battle fo the Dardenelles the year later, 3 to 2 when the lost the 3rd Dardenelles the next year, with 4th Dardenelles, where they were finally outnumbered, indecisive, but with greater losses to the Turks. Kobolkut, where they beat the ustro-Hungarians though outnumbered 2 to 1, is one of the very few instances when they actually managed to win without substantial numerical superiority, and only against one of Europe’s worst armies. They had more than 2 to 1 superiority when the Franco-German League of the Rhine beat them at Saint Gotthard. When Sobieski and the HRE drove them from Vienna, the Turks outnumbered the relief force 2 to 1. When they were forced to face the HRE at even odds at 2nd Mohacs, they suffered nearly 17 times the casualties as the Imperials. With 3 to 2 Turkish superiority, the Turks again lost to the HRE at Slankamen. They beat the Venetians in an even battle at the Oinoussus Islands only because the Venetians lacked their usual allies from the Order of Malta or Northern European mercenaries. They had 3 to 2 odds when they narrowly beat the HRE at Ulas. They had a 3 to 2 superiority again when the HRE slaughtered them 17 to 1 at Zenta.

In the 18th Century, they needed nearly 5 to 1 odds to beat the Russians at Pruth. They had a better than 3 to 2 advantage when the HRE again massacred them 10 to 1 at Petrovaradin. 1.7 to 1 odds led only to an indecisive battle against the Venetians at Imbros. When they dared to fight the Portuguese at Cape Matapan, where the Portuguese had the same advantage in numbers the Turks had against the Venetians at Imbors, the Turks were crushed, with half their fleet sunk. The Turks needed 2.5 to 1 advantage to beat the Austrians at Grocka. When they faced the Russians at Savuchny with only a 3 to 2 advantage, they were crushed with 77 to 1 casualties! At 7 to 4 advantage, the Turks lost to the Persians at Kars. With better than 3 to 1 superiority, the lost to the Georgians at Khresili and again at Aspindza. Despite a 7 to 4 advantage in ships and men, the Turks were crushed with 12 to 1 losses by the Russian navy at Cesme Bay. At Larga and again at Kagul River, the Turks had more then twice the numbers of the Russians, but lost both times. With a 5 to 1 advantage at Kozludhza, the Turks suffered 14 times the losses of the Russians. Focsani, where the Turkish only held a 6 to 5 advantage, was predictably an Austro-Russian victory again, with 10 to 1 losses for the Turks. At Ramnic, 4 to 1 Turkish superiority to the Austro-Russian force still landed the Turks another utter defeat with 20 to 1 losses. With a 4 to 3 advantage, the Turkish fleet was beaten by the Russians at Kerch, then again at Cape Kaliakra.

In the 19th Century, Serbian revels, outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 at Ivankovac, still beat the Turks and inflicted 20 to 1 losses, then beat them again when outnumbered 5 to 1 at Misar, and again outnumbered 2 to 1 at Deligrad. When the Turkish finally, barely managed to win against the rebels with 2 to 1 superiority at Cegar, the losses were even, but the Serbs came back to triumph again outnumbered more than 3 to 1 at Ljubic. The Russians were outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 when they beat the Turks at Arpachai. In a relatively evenly matched naval action at Athos, the Russians inflicted 13 times the losses on the Turks. Even the Saudis(!) managed to beat the Turks with a narrow 5 to 4 superiority at Medina. The Turks had better than 5 to 1 advantage when they beat the Greek rebels, but the Turkish force was wiped out when it had only a little more than twice the numbers of the Greeks at Dervanakia. At the naval action at Gerontas, the Turks had nearly 3 times the guns as the Greeks, yet lost. Kamatero, were the Greeks and French volunteers divided their forces foolishly, was the only occasion in that war where the Turks won marginally outnumbered, and then only because they had both artillery and a large cavalry force, while the Greeks were all infantry. At Kulevicha, the Russian-Moldovian force had not quite a 3 to 2 advantage, will allowed them to inflict over 12 times the losses on the Turks. At Konya, the Egyptian rebels were outnumbered 7 to 2, but crushed the Turks, inflicting 11 times the losses. The Turks lost again though having a 3 to 2 advantage over the Egyptians at Mezar. The Turks prevailed against the Russians at Oltenita only because they had both a 4 to 3 advantage and a fortified position, yet in the open field, a 2 to 1 Turkish advantage in numbers at Kurekdere ended in Russian victory. Kars involved even matched Turkish and Russian forces, and was a narrow Turkish victory, for which the Turkish paid with higher losses by 5 to 4. Despite having less than a 2 to 1 advantage, the Russians were able to storm the fortress of Plevna, with only 60% greater losses, which is miraculous for such an undertaking in an age of conoidial bullets and explosive shells. At the Shipka Pass the Russians were outnumbered between 6 and 3 to one, yet inflicted nearly 5 times the losses on the Turks.

In WWI, the Turkish only ever won when commanded by German General Staff officers, and the Germans had the best officer corps in the world at the time, of which the General Staff were the elite. Even so, the British tended to have a 7 to 2 advantage against the Turks in per-man casualty effectiveness. When you consider the the Germans had a 60% per-man casualty superiority against the British, the Turkish did almost as bad as the horribly demoralised, badly supplied Russians, even with German officers to guide them.

You see a trend here? The Turks almost always had substantial numerical advantage, yet frequently lost, usually losing more troops whether they won or lost, and often by a horrendously lopsided margin. They very, very rarely won when outnumbered, and almost never by a more than marginal amount, whereas Europeans often won when heavily outnumbered by Tursk, and often completely slaughtered them on such occasions. The numbers argue quite unmistakably that the Turkish have been third-rate soldiers between 1300 and the Turkish Republic, and they tended to get worse, not better, over that period. Over 600 years of poor showing in battle.

Ataturk and the Turkish Republic is the only thing that brought them up to a reasonable standard again, and he did that by heavily copying the German system, and making a completely secular armed forces. When the Turkish stop being hot-headed religious fanatics, and organise themselves in a tolerably meritocratic fashion, they can perform credibly, like other humans. But along came Sultan Erdogan, purging the officer corps and filling it with all the irrational Islamist fanatics the armed forces had kicked out, and look: back to Ottoman incompetence again! Yes, Turks can be competent, but only if the rid themselves of the Sultan and come back into the 21st century again.

I could not read the whole post as there are several mistakes. First, Turks have not fought against Persians in Caldiran. The opposing army was also a Turkish Army lead by Shah Ismael, the Turkish ruler of Persia. Secondly, Turks have fought against several crusader armies some of which enjoyed 10 to 1 numerical superiority. Also, Saudis took Medina 2 months after the armistice. They only managed to take Mekka as the governor of the city betrayed the Turks and there was not enough Turkish soldiers there at that time. If you are really interested in history, I recommend you to take look at the British and Turkish losses in Sinai front during the WW1. You’ll see that it is like 50000 Turkish losses vs 600000 British losses (including the sick and wounded).

Persian Turcomen, right? I’m not surprised to learn the Saudis used trickery. I was astounded at the Saudis beating anyone. But as for Palestine, British combat losses were only 51,000, and the Ottoman force was mostly commanded by German generals, with a 3 battalion German contingent present. While losing some 550,000 people on that campaign indicates abysmal logistics on the part of the British, it doesn’t say much about how well Turkish troops fought compared to British Empire troops. It merely adds further validity to the German assessment of the British Army of the day as “lions led by donkeys.”

As for the fights against crusaders, perhaps you’d care to name the battles? I’d bet they were both pre-1300, when the Turks were still a pretty effective Mongol-type force.

Perhaps you’d like to read the rest of my post, because you haven’t really undermined my thesis: The Turks started out an effective fighting force, as a nomadic, Mongol type of group, but as they established an empire, they steadily declined from 1300 to 1900, so that by the end of the 14th Century they were usually being outperformed by European armies and only regained any semblance of their original fighting ability with the rise of the Turkish Republic, when Ataturk set out to create a modern country and copied numerous aspects of the much more effective Germans they’d operated with. Removing Chalidran and the Saudi rebellion from the long list of battles I gave has no tangible effect on my argument.

Turks fought against whole Europe until 1800 and only after the involvement of Russia our state started to decline, which was inevitable due to the lack of manpower.

P.S. Germans could not understand why they could never win one single battle while fighting against the Turkish Army, for decades (300 years to be more precise) and Luther have told them poor Germans that Turks are one of the main evil forces ranked third after the Catholic church and lust and they are the sons of devil . So shut the f. up or I’ll come and get you..

Your first statement is patently false. Simply look at the battles they lost (and the numerical odds and loss margin) from Sisak in 1579 onwards.

As to the second, Germans rarely fought them between 1300 and 1579, but various Balkan armies beat them on numerous occasions. Whether someone chose to whine to Luther about the odd battle every century or so, were some tiny German contingent fought as part of a motley coalition force, and being both outnumbered and lacking unity of command, unsurprisingly lost, is of very little relevance.

As to the third, I must inform you that pretty much nothing that frightened/frightens Luther or Christians troubles me in the slightest, so your ranking on his list of evil is not sufficiently menacing to worry me. (Lust is my favourite of the 7 Sins, for example). If you can manage to come and get me, let us make it easy and go by the old mediaeval German rule of arm as you will, and all techniques are allowed. These moderners with all their foppish rules, and fear of the True Art are rather droll, I find. But you might let me know whether you consider yourself insult in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree, so I don’t have to decide for myself.

You’re a bit weird so I’d rather stay away and shoot you with cannon fire from a distance. Then I’ll pee on your remains because I’m Turkish. the bad guy

I know. It was magnifico! What a glorious destruction of the infidel Turks who had a supposedly invincible fleet. Deus Vult!

Not really, they built themselves massive castles and lived across Levant for entire generations, providing safe protection for themselves and other traveling pilgrims.

The Holy Roman Empire and the warriors of Europe defeated you before and will again with the Rome of the East, Mother Russia.

The Holy Eastern Orthodox (Russia) are now aligned with Islam (Syrian Army and people, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah) and are defeating fake GCC Wahabi Muslim(sic) and Evangelical Christian Zionists. Then the same Alliance will turn their attention to the Devil worshiping (Jehovah) Jews. Israel will fall soon. And the West, is in terminal decline.,soon to be the bitch of China.

The Christian Zionists are not “Christian”. There is no such thing as “Judeo Christian”.

China is done. I’m surprised you don’t see that yet. China needs the West to sell their cheap goods to. With Trump lowering corporate taxes and slapping tariffs on China, their economy will tumble and the CCP is done. The only thing China offers to the world is slave labor. With automation rising, companies don’t need to invest in China anymore. With lower taxes and less regulation in the US, China can’t compete. Trump hasn’t even been sworn in and he’s already making China his bitch.

The Syrian Arab Army is a secular army – it has Sunni/Alawite/Shia/Christian members, the majority of conscripts are Sunni, but its leadership is mixed, it is not a muslim army, it is secular national army. Russia is interested in other states outside of anglo-american NATO controlled axis, so BRICS, China, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, India are all important relations to Russia. Syria is old client and ally and Iran is newer client eager for military hardware, but Russia is not allied to Iran.

they are ottomans not turks todays turks are ally of nato and enemy of kurdish people those ottomans were brothers with kurdish and kurds joined there forces you need some class to educated your self

hassiktir lan. google this

Ottoman is the name of the ruling family-dynasty you moron. Before them the family name was Seljuks and the nobles are all the sons of Mete Khan. You get educated in the West and become enemies of Islam. It is not your mistake you moron

You don’t get out much do you? Have yo seen footage of the shelled and devastated Kurdish towns in south east Turkey from last two years? Meanwhile right now your Turkish army is attempting to ethnically cleanse Kurdish villages in northern Syria and replace them with Turkmen militants.

The towns are devastated as the pkk militants who planted bombs in buildings. Civilians are not hurt on purpose and most of them fled the towns. And you know what. the government will build their houses as a compensation. The ones who moved to western parts are also living together with Turks without any problems sponge Bob