Cyprus-Forum.com

[Hatter]

Greetings,
gals and guys as you are well awared numbers or statistics may not be important because strategy and tactics come first.

But this http://www.globalfirepower.com/ would help to have an idea. Greece could compete with Sweden, North Korea or Mexica if she likes and I hope they dont try to convince the public with the idea that Greece might have a great success against Turkey, in fact this would be disasterous for the beautiful Aegean...

Gnights

Although entirely hypothetical, the Greece vs Turkey war scenario is interesting. The "numbers" in armed conflict is only one of the factors. There are examples in recent history that illustrate that "numbers" are not always the decisive factor (e.g. Yom Kippur in the sixties, Greece vs Italy in 1940). Be that as it may, the numbers of "Greece 11 million, Turkey 70 million" are a fallacy because it ignores the fact that the 11 million Gs are homogeneous and cohesive, whereas the 70 million Ts are not - 25 out of the 70 million are Kurds, what do you think they would do in such a scenario? and what do you think Syria would do in the scenario that the "water supplier" is facing towards the Aegean? and what would Armenia do in such a scenario for that matter? As for Bulgaria on the European border of Turkey, hmmm, anybody's guess. How these variables would play is uncertain, but could Turkey afford to ignore the possibilities and leave the corresponding parts of Turkey unguarded? Me thinks not. Yes, the Aegean islands would be at risk, but at the same time they are advanced positions from which strikes can be launched against strategic targets on the turkish mainland, whereas the Greek mainland is not so exposed.

Another factor is whether it would be in the interests of, say, European countries to rally to the aid of Turkey: the supply of energy resources to Europe is not so dependent on pipelines through Turkey (see the pipeline already long in construction to supply directly into Germany from Russia, bypassing third countries, directly across the Baltic Sea).

Suddenly the outcome of such a scenario does not look like a foregone conclusion, does it?

[Hatter]

what does greece have that turkey does not? the greeks are cleaver and could do alot of damage but being realistic i dont believe they could beat the turks only because they outnumber them their invaded instanbul has more of a population then all of greece ....

Paliometoxo is right - the alleged quote by Stalin when referring to the Pope "how many Divisions does he command?" springs to mind.

When doing a military staff course they talk about brigades and divisions not quality. Also the Turks are not that bad, they have much the same equipment, NATO standard, and many of their best officers train in the UK/US/Germany etc so are perfectly able.

and as the tensions between Turkey and Greece are at present not very high how would the be likely to go to war in 3 months?

Is it the same kind of best officers that managed to sink their own Kodjatepe in 1974? Or perhaps the same kind that took 2 days to seize control of Kyrenia when they had complete air superiority and their opponents were a betrayed, ill-equiped, outnumbered and under-resourced RoC National Guard? Or perhaps the same kind that failed to seize control of the Nicosia airport? How do you think these best officers would fare in a diferent scenario?

[ahristos]

also one more factor
GREEKS HAVE EUS SUPORTE
IN MATERIAL AND MONEY
this is a big factor
TURKS KNOWS IT

[AWE]

what does greece have that turkey does not? the greeks are cleaver and could do alot of damage but being realistic i dont believe they could beat the turks only because they outnumber them their invaded instanbul has more of a population then all of greece ....

Paliometoxo is right - the alleged quote by Stalin when referring to the Pope "how many Divisions does he command?" springs to mind.

When doing a military staff course they talk about brigades and divisions not quality. Also the Turks are not that bad, they have much the same equipment, NATO standard, and many of their best officers train in the UK/US/Germany etc so are perfectly able.

and as the tensions between Turkey and Greece are at present not very high how would the be likely to go to war in 3 months?

Is it the same kind of best officers that managed to sink their own Kodjatepe in 1974? Or perhaps the same kind that took 2 days to seize control of Kyrenia when they had complete air superiority and their opponents were a betrayed, ill-equiped, outnumbered and under-resourced RoC National Guard? Or perhaps the same kind that failed to seize control of the Nicosia airport? How do you think these best officers would fare in a diferent scenario?

and in any conflict there are friendly fire incidences even with the US and Israeli and other advanced armed forces. As every plan changes following contact with the enemy does it matter they did not archive their objectives on day 1, the allies did not in Normandy and they had complete air superiority. The reason they did not take Nicosia airport was that it was defended by the UN and Turkey did not want to fire on them for political not military reasons - see "a business of some heat" by Brigadier Francis Henn. Finally, they will do just as well as their Greek counterparts.

[Hatter]

what does greece have that turkey does not? the greeks are cleaver and could do alot of damage but being realistic i dont believe they could beat the turks only because they outnumber them their invaded instanbul has more of a population then all of greece ....

Paliometoxo is right - the alleged quote by Stalin when referring to the Pope "how many Divisions does he command?" springs to mind.

When doing a military staff course they talk about brigades and divisions not quality. Also the Turks are not that bad, they have much the same equipment, NATO standard, and many of their best officers train in the UK/US/Germany etc so are perfectly able.

and as the tensions between Turkey and Greece are at present not very high how would the be likely to go to war in 3 months?

Is it the same kind of best officers that managed to sink their own Kodjatepe in 1974? Or perhaps the same kind that took 2 days to seize control of Kyrenia when they had complete air superiority and their opponents were a betrayed, ill-equiped, outnumbered and under-resourced RoC National Guard? Or perhaps the same kind that failed to seize control of the Nicosia airport? How do you think these best officers would fare in a diferent scenario?

and in any conflict there are friendly fire incidences even with the US and Israeli and other advanced armed forces. As every plan changes following contact with the enemy does it matter they did not archive their objectives on day 1, the allies did not in Normandy and they had complete air superiority. The reason they did not take Nicosia airport was that it was defended by the UN and Turkey did not want to fire on them for political not military reasons - see "a business of some heat" by Brigadier Francis Henn. Finally, they will do just as well as their Greek counterparts.

Friendly fire incidents are one thing, but to sink an entire battleship is something else.

The significance of "not achieving objectives on day 1" is the context. It is an indication of ability on the ground. The allies in Normandy were facing organized and equipped (and unbetrayed) German forces esconced in serious fortifications.

There was much fighting around Nicosia airport that went on for days. If you believe that the reason that the Turkish forces did not take Nicosia airport was because of the UN intervention, you are not fully informed. They failed to overwhelm the greek commando contingent that was defending the airport area. For a detailed account of what really went on, see http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72861

[AWE]

battleship! don't you mean Destroyer.

sorry I think you are wrong here

"The significance of "not achieving objectives on day 1" is the context. It is an indication of ability on the ground."

the allies had been fighting the Axis for some time, had undertaken invasions before, had detailed knowledge of the enemy and overwhelming force yet still failed to archive day 1 objective even a number of days later - the point being that plans changes as soon as you make contact with the enemy. How long did they plan to take Kyrenia and how long did they take to take Kyrenia is the question.

Granted about the airport I have heard the US thought it was the only major failure of the operation.

[Hatter]

battleship! don't you mean Destroyer.

sorry I think you are wrong here

"The significance of "not achieving objectives on day 1" is the context. It is an indication of ability on the ground."

the allies had been fighting the Axis for some time, had undertaken invasions before, had detailed knowledge of the enemy and overwhelming force yet still failed to archive day 1 objective even a number of days later - the point being that plans changes as soon as you make contact with the enemy. How long did they plan to take Kyrenia and how long did they take to take Kyrenia is the question.

Granted about the airport I have heard the US thought it was the only major failure of the operation.

I was using "battleship" in a generic, layman's sense. Destroyer it is then, but it does not change the point in question.

You did not address the contrast between the Allies' adversary in Normandy on the one hand and the Turks' adversary in 1974 on the other. Read my previous post again. As for the time factor in the plans, perhaps you can tell us more about it. By some accounts (which, admittedly, I am not in a position to verify) Ecevit was getting anxious about the perceived delay in achieving the objective. One thing is for certain, it stands to reason that time was of the essence for Turkish plans, for international political reasons: to avoid or preempt the risk of international reaction to the invasion.

I see that we agree about the Nicosia airport battle.

[ahristos]

NOW GREEK PRIME RETURNES TO TURKEY ALL ILLEGALS IMMIGRANTS WHO HAS COME THRUE TURKEY
SO SHOW TO THEM YOUR REAL HOSPITALITY
THEY GONNA EXSPELL ABT 700.000 IRANIANS IRAQIES SYRIANS LEBABESES EGYPTIANS ALGERIAND ECT
ALL THOSE WHO HAVE COME FROM TURKEY.. EVERY MUNTH APROX 15.000 PERSONS CROSS ILLIGALY GR-TR FRONTIERS
NOW GREEKS PACK THEM AND SEND THEM BACK TO TURKEY

[denizaksulu]

im no pro turk but they would destroy greece and cyprus in a day...

Amn, aman!! Sakin haa!!!........................please NOOOOOOOOO!!

[EPSILON]

what does greece have that turkey does not? the greeks are cleaver and could do alot of damage but being realistic i dont believe they could beat the turks only because they outnumber them their invaded instanbul has more of a population then all of greece ....

Paliometoxo is right - the alleged quote by Stalin when referring to the Pope "how many Divisions does he command?" springs to mind.

When doing a military staff course they talk about brigades and divisions not quality. Also the Turks are not that bad, they have much the same equipment, NATO standard, and many of their best officers train in the UK/US/Germany etc so are perfectly able.

and as the tensions between Turkey and Greece are at present not very high how would the be likely to go to war in 3 months?

Is it the same kind of best officers that managed to sink their own Kodjatepe in 1974? Or perhaps the same kind that took 2 days to seize control of Kyrenia when they had complete air superiority and their opponents were a betrayed, ill-equiped, outnumbered and under-resourced RoC National Guard? Or perhaps the same kind that failed to seize control of the Nicosia airport? How do you think these best officers would fare in a diferent scenario?

and in any conflict there are friendly fire incidences even with the US and Israeli and other advanced armed forces. As every plan changes following contact with the enemy does it matter they did not archive their objectives on day 1, the allies did not in Normandy and they had complete air superiority. The reason they did not take Nicosia airport was that it was defended by the UN and Turkey did not want to fire on them for political not military reasons - see "a business of some heat" by Brigadier Francis Henn. Finally, they will do just as well as their Greek counterparts.

Your statement about Nicosia airpot is the bigger joke i have ever heart about 1974 incidents. "The reason they did not take Nicosia airport was that it was defended by the UN and Turkey did not want to fire on them for political not military reasons -"

Just fo your information Turks made more than 10 attemps to take control of the airport. Greek officer in charge (airport was one of very few cases where Turks faced Greek forces and not National guard.) despite he was receiving orders from his supiriors to lieve the area (as you know the few Greek forces which came from Creta Island were facing the Turks and also the trators in charge in National guard's hedquarters in Nicosia.) he made the clever movement to ask the UN chief in the area to sign the transfer of airport control to UN.

this is the real fact and do not appear Turks to respect UN or anybody else that period.They just could not take it.