Medium Tank A6

Medium Tank A6

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Medium Tank A6

The Medium Tank A6 was designed in an attempt to replace the existing Vickers Medium Tanks Mk I and Mk II but was abandoned because of expense.

In July 1926 the War Office issued a specification for a new medium tank. It was to be armed with two independent machine gun turrets, weigh less than 16 tons, have a main gun capable of penetrating enemy armour at 1,000yds, heavy belly armour for when it crested a hill, fuel tanks outside the hull and to be as quiet as possible. Vickers was selected to develop this tank.

The basic layout of the A6 had the engine and transmission at the rear and the fighting chamber at the front, with the two auxiliary turrets at the very front of the tank and the main turret just behind them. The main turret was circular, with slightly sloped sides. The rear deck then sloped gently down from the back of the turret to the rear of the tank. The tank weighed 17.5 tons, three tons heavier than predicted by Vickers, and this was without the rear machinegun turret originally planned. Engine power had to rise in response, so the 120hp engine of the original plans was replaced with a 180hp model. Two mild steel prototypes were made in just under a year, followed by a third and final prototype.

The first prototype (A6E1) was powered by a 180hp Armstrong-Siddeley V-8 engine. The main turret carried the 3pdr main gun and one .303in Vickers machine gun. The two auxiliary turrets each carried two Vickers machine guns. The main turret had two cupolas, side by side. Suspension was of the box bogie type.

The second prototype (A6E2) was very similar. It was originally built with a 180hp Ricardo CI diesel engine, but was later given a 180hp Armstrong-Siddeley engine.

The third prototype (A6E3) used the Armstrong-Siddeley engine. The auxiliary turrets were redesigned, and only carried one .303in gun each. The main turret only had a single cupola. Suspension was of the Horstman type. In tests during 1937 the A6E3 was given a much more powerful 500hp Thorneycroft RY 12 engine.

In 1930 it was decided to end the direct development of the A6, which was seen as too costly. Vickers moved on to the slightly lighter Medium Tank Mk III, while the three A6 prototypes were used for a series of experiments that continued until 1938.

Medium Tank, A6

Production: Three prototypes
Hull Length: 21ft 6in
Hull Width: 8ft 9in
Height: 9ft 2in
Crew: 7
Weight: 17.4 tons
Engine: Varied
Max Speed:
Max Range:
Armament: One 3pdr QF gun, five Vickers .303in machine guns (three on A6E3)
Armour: 9-14mm

The Medium story guide, mission list and tips

Our story guide for The Medium on PC, Xbox Series X and S.

The Medium is a psychological horror game created by Bloober Team and released on the PC, Xbox Series X and S.

It follows Marianne, the titled medium, as she's mysteriously summoned to the abandoned Niwa Hotel. There she must use her powers to uncover the secret history of the hotel and help the spirits trapped within its grounds.

Our The Medium story guide lists all the missions you must complete to help you pinpoint exactly where you are in the game and give you an idea about what you'll have to do next. We've also included a list of tips to help you fully enjoy The Medium.

12 Things You Need To Know About The Medium - The Medium gameplay preview

Modern Day Examples

The storage-type heater is the most common type of heater used today. Many innovations upon Ruud’s original design over the years have allowed storage heaters descended from his original design to fulfill a wide range of roles in a variety of different homes and commercial establishments. Some areas of the world that pose different challenges for dispersing heated water, such as sparsely populated areas like Scandinavia, or densely populated areas like China. For different scenarios that render storage-type heaters inefficient, a wide range of either tankless solutions or mass-heating dispersal has seen a good deal of popularity.

The main problem with storage heaters is that they do not truly provide a constant flow of hot water. It is possible to use up the reserves of hot water, requiring patience to allow the heat to build back up again. This makes tank heaters less attractive solutions for large-scale complexes with a large amount of demand for hot water.

Centralized water heaters are more traditional, and are effective to this day for smaller buildings with less demand for hot water. However, for many modern domestic settings, such as larger apartment buildings with intermittent hot water demand, utilizing multiple POU (point-of-use) water heaters may be a better solution. The main advantage of using tankless heaters at points-of-use is that it provides a plentiful continuous flow of hot water, and allows for some energy savings under certain conditions.

Another thing that has become more common with the advent of modern water heaters is the shower. While some showering traditions existed before the advent of modern water heaters, the practice was far from common outside of areas with access to natural showers (such as waterfalls). Since the innovation of modern water heaters, the efficiency of constantly flowing clean hot water has made the shower quite commonplace.

The spread of the shower has minimized the amount of time we spend bathing, and has led to much more regular and solitary bathing habits in the west. Although public bathing practices persist in some areas as a luxury, the convenience of the modern shower is by far the most common form of bathing in today’s world. Other innovations in water heating and heat dispersion are sure to cause ripples such as these in the future, as well.

Medium Tanks

Medium tanks are multi-purpose tanks with balanced characteristics that can assume many different roles in game. They are represented by a two-piece green or red diamond on the mini-map and over their respective target marker.


How a medium tank performs varies greatly from tank to tank, but in terms of size, firepower, maneuverability, and protection medium tanks generally fall between the larger, burlier heavy tanks and the smaller, nimbler light tanks. Medium tanks take many characteristics from both, albeit to lesser extremes. They tend to be fairly maneuverable which allows them to take position and quickly relocate in ways heavy tanks and slow tank destroyers can't. Medium tank guns are usually more potent than those on light tanks but usually come up short of heavy tank guns. Despite this, most medium tanks have the firepower necessary to reliably do damage to enemy heavy tanks of their tier. Medium tanks also have moderate amounts of armor - enough to protect them from weaker guns and poorly aimed shots, but not enough to allow them to engage most tanks in drawn out, head-to-head brawls. Many high-tier medium tanks represent some of the first main battle tanks, and usually have similar, well-rounded attributes.

Since medium tanks are multi-role vehicles, exactly how they're played depends on the situation. In most cases, medium tanks are most effective supporting friendly heavy tanks or other higher tier mediums. When using their speed to engage in flanking maneuvers, medium tanks can put effective fire into larger enemy vehicles without putting themselves at risk. A well coordinated pair or group of medium tanks working in tandem can easily take down much larger enemies while taking little to no damage themselves. Medium tanks can also take on the roles of other more specialized vehicles that are either critically damaged or already destroyed. Depending on the characteristics of the specific tank being used, a medium tank can use its limited armor and remaining hitpoints to brawl for a short amount of time, its speed to scout enemy vehicles, or its firepower to give supporting fire.

Variety and Examples

While most medium tanks share the same well-rounded, multi-use performance, some are more specialized than others. Tanks such as the Matilda and Sherman Jumbo are medium tanks only by definition, and effectively play like heavy tanks at their tiers. Others, such as the Panther and Leopard are superb in the sniping role, but are poorly protected from enemy fire themselves. In addition, some tanks such as the M7 and A-43 sacrifice armor and firepower for great speed and gun handling, and therefore behave more like large light tanks.

Test Vehicles

Despite quickly being superseded by the M3 design, the basic M2 design was used for a few experimental vehicles, such as the M2 with the E2 Flame Gun. The M2 with the E2 Flame Gun was a test vehicle made in 1941 that had a flamethrower mounted where the 37 mm gun had been with the fuel containers carried on the rear of the hull. Additionally, an M2 was also used to test the British version of M3 Medium Tank’s 37 mm turret in November 1940 during the M3’s development. Unfortunately, the test results are not known.

M2 Medium with the British version of the M3 turret installed (Photo: British and American Tanks of World War 2)

Desert Storm

Operation Desert Storm, popularly known as the first Gulf War, was the successful U.S.-Allied response to Iraq's attempt to overwhelm neighboring Kuwait. Kuwait's liberation in 1991 brought to the battlefield a new era of military technology. Nearly all battles were aerial and ground combat within Iraq, Kuwait, and outlying areas of Saudi Arabia. Iraq inflicted little damage on the American coalition however, they fired missiles on Israeli citizens. History At the request of the Kuwaitis, Kuwait had become a British Protectorate in 1889. British forces protected the area until 1961. Kuwait was a part of Iraq until 1923, when borders were drawn. On June 19, 1961, British protection ended and Kuwait joined the Arab League. Iraq objected strongly and claimed that Kuwait was part of their territory. Kuwait formed its own constitution on January 1963. Accordingly, the emir held the executive power, organized with a group of ministers. By January 23, a national assembly was elected. By October, 1963, Iraq gave up its claim on Kuwait. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wanted to regain that lost land for Iraq, and so he invaded. Leading up to war On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been making threats against Kuwait for some time, but his actual invasion caught most of the world by surprise. The magnitude of the invasion also was a surprise. Those who had expected an attack, such as the commander of U.S. Central Command, Norman Schwarzkopf, expected a limited attack to seize Kuwaiti oil fields. Instead, within a number of hours, Iraqi forces had seized downtown Kuwait City and were headed south toward the Saudi Arabia border. Word of the Iraqi attack reached Washington, D.C., as Iraqi forces assembled at the Saudi border. The Pentagon had plans in place to aid the Saudis, and U.S. forces went on standby for the Saudis' request. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and General Schwarzkopf met with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to brief him on the plans, which he approved. Within minutes of the meeting, orders were issued, and thus began the largest buildup of American forces since the Vietnam War. Within a short period, members of the 82nd Airborne Division, as well as 300 combat aircraft, were headed for Saudi Arabia. A deadline set for Saddam Hussein By the end of September 1990, there were nearly 200,000 American personnel in Saudi Arabia — enough to repel any Iraqi attack. The initial plan to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait called for a direct offensive aimed at Kuwait City but Schwarzkopf and other American commanders thought that the risk was too great against heavily armed, well-entrenched defenders. Instead, they called for additional troops to prepare for the largest military cleanup ever seen. President Bush (with Saudi approval) ordered an additional 140,000 soldiers, including the Third Armored Division with its Abrams M1A tanks. During that period, reinforcements from numerous other nations arrived, including British, French, Egyptian and even Syrian forces. On November 29, the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15.

Superior U.S. air power On the morning of January 16, 1991, Allied forces began the first phase of Desert Storm, also known as Desert Shield. American forces first destroyed Iraqi border radar stations, then other key elements of the Iraqi anti-aircraft network lastly, they began to bomb key targets in downtown Iraq, including the presidential palace, communication centers, and power stations. The Allied forces lost only two aircraft during the attacks. The assault continued day and night. Those initial air attacks constituted the first time the American military witnessed how their new arsenal performed in combat conditions. With such ground systems as the M1A1 Abrams missile and the MIM-104 Patriot missile, the Iraq military had little opportunity to defend themselves. Also, such other groundbreaking technology as the Global Positioning System (GPS), helped to pinpoint hits by the Tomahawk missile and other weapons. The damage done by U.S. air attacks was devastating to Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard. The following U.S. aircraft left "a big hurt" on the enemy during the war: AH-64 Apache helicopters, B-52 Stratofortress bombers, E-3 AWACS surveillance aircraft, F-117A Stealth fighters, E-8C JSTARS radar command posts, and the RPVs (drones). Overall, the coalition air campaign (consisting mostly of U.S. pilots) accumulated a total of 109,876 sorties over the 43-day air war — averaging 2,555 sorties per day. Of those, more than 27,000 sorties struck enemy Scuds, airfields, air defenses, electrical power, biological and chemical weapons caches, headquarters, intelligence assets, communications, the Iraqi army, and oil refineries. Scuds fired at Israel and the attack on Al Khafji At 3 a.m on January 17, the Iraqis fired seven Scud missiles at Israel. Israelis were awaiting the Scuds with gas masks on, thanks to Saddam's previous threats to burn half of Israel with chemical weapons. As it turned out, the Scuds bore only conventional warheads, but their terror value was high. To avoid a wider war, U.S. officials pleaded with Israeli officials to not respond to the Scud attacks. The Israelis agreed because the Americans promised to target all Scud missile sites and knock them out. On January 29, following two weeks of punishing coalition air assaults, the Iraqis mounted their one and only attack subsequent to the invasion at the Battle of Khafji. The Iraqi Fifth Mechanized Division attacked south, capturing the Saudi town of Al Khafji eight miles south of the Kuwaiti border. The Iraqis overran the first Saudi force that attempted a counterattack and, despite massive American air attacks, they held on to the town through the day and night. The next day was a different story, however, when Saudis recaptured the town, forcing the remaining Iraqis to flee to the Kuwaiti border. Operation Desert Sabre After a 38-day air campaign, Operation Desert Sabre, a massive ground attack, was launched by Americans and the coalition into both Iraq and Kuwait. Day One ground attack. On February 24th at 4 a.m., Allied troops led by U.S. Marines crossed the border into Iraq. During the days before the attack, Iraqi troops had been subjected to merciless air attacks every imaginable target was destroyed with accuracy. The Allied offensive targeted three major offensive venues: the first aimed at Kuwait City, the second to the west aimed at the Iraqi flank, and the final one far to the west, beyond the major Iraqi lines that would totally outflank Iraqi lines. In the first day of the war the marines advanced halfway to Kuwait City and the western advances proceeded without difficulty — while capturing thousands of Iraqi deserters. The first day of ground fighting resulted in minimal American casualties. Day Two ground attack. As Day Two approached, an Iraqi Scud missile destroyed the U.S. barracks in Dhahran, killing 28 U.S. soldiers. With morale nevertheless high, American troops advanced on all fronts. The marines approached Kuwait City, while the western flank began to cut off the Iraqi Army's retreat route. Coalition casualties for Day Two were, once again, light. Day Three ground attack Day Three dawned on the largest tank battle in history. The American armored forces engaged the tank forces of the Iraqi Republican guard. Like shooting fish in a barrel, the American tanks destroyed the Iraqi heavy armor without losing a single tank. On February 26th, Iraqi troops began to retreat from Kuwait while setting fire to an estimated 700 Kuwaiti oil wells. A long convoy of Iraqi troops, as well as Iraqi and Palestinian civilians, formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. That convoy was bombed so relentlessly by the Allies that it came to be known as the "Highway of Death." One hundred hours after the ground campaign began, President Bush declared a cease-fire — declaring the liberation of Kuwait on February 27, 1991. Postwar epilogue On April 5th, 1991, President Bush announced that U.S. relief supply airdrops would be made to Kurdish refugees in Turkey and northern Iraq. After Iraq issued its acceptance of a cease-fire, Task Force Provide Comfort was formed and deployed to assist the Kurds. The U.S. transport delivered some 72,000 pounds of supplies in the first six Operation Provide Comfort missions. By April 20, the construction of the first Provide Comfort tent city began near Zakhu, Iraq. By war's end, U.S. forces released 71,204 Iraqi prisoners to Saudi control. U.S. casualties

Description [ edit | edit source ]

The A6 Juggernaut model was larger than its predecessor. It measured 30.4 meters in height and 49.4 meters in length. Its interior space was greatly increased to allow for up to three hundred troopers and equipment, a complement of close support craft such as speeder bikes and light airspeeders, or a mix of both. A combination of twelve crew members were required to pilot and control the massive vehicle, although with an automation package, that requirement could be reduced to just two pilots.

An A6 Juggernaut cross-section.

With thick, thermally superconducting armor (capable of absorbing enemy fire and dispersing heat over a wide area) and a heavier load, the A6 Juggernaut could only achieve 160 kilometers per hour, and the turning issues of the A5 model were magnified with the A6. The slowness required for negotiating turns encouraged the A6's use on open terrain rather than urban battlefields.

Weapons systems were also upgraded to include a heavy laser cannon turret, a rapid repeating laser cannon, two medium antipersonnel laser cannons, two twin antipersonnel blaster cannons, and two turreted projectile launchers, loadable with variable-yield concussion grenades for close support or missiles added for anti-armor firepower. Missile range was 30km. Against an unshielded target, a Juggernaut could deliver the heat of a nuclear bomb into a small area. Γ]

From a small pod above the vehicle's front, a spotter kept lookout for enemy forces. Though there was a large view of the area, he was an easy target for hostile troops. This observation mast could be retracted when not in use.

Modern, high combat capability, extremely mobile and well-protected

The LEOPARD 2 A6M owes its outstanding performance capability to an ideal combination of protection, mobility, manoeuvrability and fire power. The optimal manoeuvrability of the LEOPARD 2 is based on the unique symbiosis between vehicle crew and cutting-edge German-made technology. The continuous refinement of the primary and secondary defence protects the crew and the machine itself from the latest types of ammunition and threats.

The armed forces of 18 nations rely upon the LEOPARD&rsquos versatile superiority. KMW has delivered all of them. With over 3,500 units, this is a rate which is unparalleled worldwide. Moreover, many international customers have planned and designed supply concepts, further developments and modification projects collectively using the LEO User Club. Reference customers for the LEOPARD family include Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and many more.

Germany’s Leopard 2 Tank Was Considered One of the Best (Until It Went to Syria)

Germany’s Leopard 2 main battle tank has a reputation as one of the finest in the world, competing for that distinction with proven designs such as the American M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 2. However, that reputation for nigh-invincibility has faced setbacks on Syrian battlefields, and placed Berlin in a uniquely awkward national-level dispute with Turkey, its fellow NATO member.

Ankara had offered to release a German political prisoner in exchange for Germany upgrading the Turkish Army’s older-model Leopard 2A4 tank, which had proven embarrassingly vulnerable in combat. However, on January 24, public outrage over reports that Turkey was using its Leopard 2s to kill Kurdish fighters in the Syrian enclaves of Afrin and Manbij forced Berlin to freeze the hostage-for-tanks deal.

The Leopard 2 is often compared to its near contemporary, the M1 Abrams: in truth the two designs share broadly similar characteristics, including a scale-tipping weight of well over sixty tons of advanced composite armor, 1,500 horsepower engines allowing speeds over forty miles per hour and, for certain models, the same forty-four-caliber 120-millimeter main gun produced by Rheinmetall.

Both types can easily destroy most Russian-built tanks at medium and long ranges, at which they are unlikely to be penetrated by return fire from standard 125-millimeter guns. Furthermore, they have better sights with superior thermal imagers and magnification, that make them more likely to detect and hit the enemy first—historically, an even greater determinant of the victor in armored warfare than sheer firepower. A Greek trial found that moving Leopard 2s and Abramses hit a 2.3-meter target nineteen and twenty times out of twenty, respectively, while a Soviet T-80 scored only eleven hits.

The modest differences between the two Western tanks reveal different national philosophies. The Abrams has a noisy 1,500-horsepower gas-guzzling turbine, which starts up more rapidly, while the Leopard 2’s diesel motor grants it greater range before refueling. The Abrams has achieved some of its extraordinary offensive and defensive capabilities through use of depleted uranium ammunition and armor packages—technologies politically unacceptable to the Germans. Therefore, later models of the Leopard 2A6 now mount a higher-velocity fifty-five-caliber gun to make up the difference in penetrating power, while the 2A5 Leopard introduced an extra wedge of spaced armor on the turret to better absorb enemy fire.

German scruples also extend to arms exports, with Berlin imposing more extensive restrictions on which countries it is willing to sell weapons to—at least in comparison to France, the United States or Russia. While the Leopard 2 is in service with eighteen countries, including many NATO members, a lucrative Saudi bid for between four hundred and eight hundred Leopard 2s was rejected by Berlin because of the Middle Eastern country’s human-rights records, and its bloody war in Yemen in particular. The Saudis instead ordered additional Abramses to their fleet of around four hundred.

This bring us to Turkey, a NATO country with which Berlin has important historical and economic ties, but which also has had bouts of military government and waged a controversial counterinsurgency campaign against Kurdish separatists for decades. In the early 2000s, under a more favorable political climate, Berlin sold 354 of its retired Leopard 2A4 tanks to Ankara. These represented a major upgrade over the less well protected M60 Patton tanks that make up the bulk of Turkey’s armored forces.

However, the rumor has long persisted that Berlin agreed to the sale under the condition that the German tanks not be used in Turkey’s counterinsurgency operations against the Kurds. Whether such an understanding ever existed is hotly contested, but the fact remains that the Leopard 2 was kept well away from the Kurdish conflict and instead deployed in northern Turkey, opposite Russia.

However, in the fall of 2016, Turkish Leopard 2s of the Second Armored Brigade finally deployed to the Syrian border to support Operation Euphrates Shield, Turkey’s intervention against ISIS. Prior to the Leopard’s arrival, around a dozen Turkish Patton tanks were destroyed by both ISIS and Kurdish missiles. Turkish defense commentators expressed the hope that the tougher Leopard would fare better.

The 2A4 model was the last of the Cold War–era Leopard 2s, which were designed to fight in relatively concentrated units in a fast-paced defensive war against Soviet tank columns, not to survive IEDs and missiles fired by ambushing insurgents in long-term counterinsurgency campaigns where every single loss was a political issue. The 2A4 retains an older boxy turret configurations which affords less protection from modern antitank missiles, especially to the generally more vulnerable rear and side armor, which is a bigger problem in a counterinsurgency environment, where an attack may come from any direction.

This was shockingly illustrated in December 2016 when evidence emerged that numerous Leopard 2s had been destroyed in intense fighting over ISIS-held Al-Bab—a fight that Turkish military leaders described as a “trauma,” according to Der Spiegel. A document published online listed ISIS as apparently having destroyed ten of the supposedly invincible Leopard 2s five reportedly by antitank missiles, two by mines or IEDs, one to rocket or mortar fire, and the others to more ambiguous causes.

These photos confirm the destruction of at least eight. One shows a Leopard 2 apparently knocked out by a suicide VBIED—an armored kamikaze truck packed with explosives. Another had its turret blown clean off. Three Leopard wrecks can be seen around the same hospital near Al-Bab, along with several other Turkish armored vehicles. It appears the vehicles were mostly struck the more lightly protected belly and side armor by IEDs and AT-7 Metis and AT-5 Konkurs antitank missiles.

Undoubtedly, the manner in which the Turkish Army employed the German tanks likely contributed to the losses. Rather than using them in a combined arms force alongside mutually supporting infantry, they were deployed to the rear as long-range fire-support weapons while Turkish-allied Syrian militias stiffened with Turkish special forces led the assaults. Isolated on exposed firing positions without adequate nearby infantry to form a good defensive perimeter, the Turkish Leopards were vulnerable to ambushes. The same poor tactics have led to the loss of numerous Saudi Abrams tanks in Yemen, as you can see in this video.

By contrast, more modern Leopard 2s have seen quite a bit of action in Afghanistan combating Taliban insurgents in the service of the Canadian 2A6Ms (with enhanced protection against mines and even floating “safety seats”) and Danish 2A5s. Though a few were damaged by mines, all were put back into service, though a Danish Leopard 2 crew member was mortally injured by an IED attack in 2008. In return, the tanks were praised by field commanders for their mobility and providing accurate and timely fire support during major combat operations in southern Afghanistan.

In 2017, Germany began rebuilding its tank fleet, building an even beefier Leopard 2A7V model more likely to survive in a counterinsurgency environment. Now Ankara is pressing Berlin to upgrade the defense on its Leopard 2 tanks, especially as the domestically produced Altay tank has been repeatedly delayed.

The Turkish military not only wants additional belly armor to protect against IEDs, but the addition of an Active Protection System (APS) that can detect incoming missiles and their point of origin, and jam or even shoot them down. The U.S. Army recently authorized the installation of Israeli Trophy APS on a brigade of M1 Abrams tanks, a type that has proven effective in combat. Meanwhile, Leopard 2 manufacturer Rheinmetall has unveiled its own ADATS APS, which supposedly poses a lesser risk of harming friendly troops with its defensive countermeasure missiles.

However, German-Turkish relations deteriorated sharply, especially after Erdogan initiated a prolonged crackdown on thousands of supposed conspirators after a failed military coup attempt in August 2016. In February 2017, German-Turkish dual-citizen Deniz Yücel, a correspondent for periodical Die Welt, was arrested by Turkish authorities, ostensibly for being a pro-Kurdish spy. His detention caused outrage in Germany.

Ankara pointedly let it be known that if a Leopard 2 upgrade were allowed to proceed, Yücel would be released back to Germany. Though Berlin publicly insisted it would never agree to such a quid pro quo, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel quietly began moving towards authorizing the upgrade in a bid to improve relations in the face of what looks suspiciously like tank-based blackmail. Gabriel presented the deal as a measure to protect Turkish soldiers’ lives from ISIS.

However, in mid-January 2018, Turkey launched an offensive against the Kurdish enclaves of Afrin and Manbij in northwestern Syria. The attack was precipitated generally by Turkish fears that effective Kurdish control of the Syrian border would lead to a de facto state that would expand into Turkish territory, and proximately by an announcement by the Pentagon that it was recruiting the Kurds to form a “border security force” to continue the fight against ISIS.