Us Sending Tanks To Afghanistan

[RackMaster]

I think the use of heavy armour has its place and needs to be used properly during operations or defence. The capability is proven and available; use it. And as for the thoughts of not sending them to prevent the locals of thinking we are an occupation forces is naive and well quite a few years to late. They had those thoughts the moment we put boots of any kind on the ground.

Here's a few great lesson's learned articles on the use of tanks in Afghanistan and their use in COIN.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/273/

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_11/iss_2/CAJ_Vol11.2_05_e.pdf

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf

And here is a British article on the deployment of the USMC Abram's that discusses the Canadian and Danish Leo's.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/11/usmc-panzers-to-afghanistan/

 

[fox1371]

• It would take a HUGE IED to flip a tank. it would take a backhoe to dig in an IED that big.

At the end of the day, force on force, the Taliban is in a bad way against a tank.

Don't under estimate those bastards, they managed to hit a Buffalo (Big Route Clearance Vehicle) with an 1,800 lb IED. They barrel rolled the damn thing about 50 yrds away from the initial explosion, so the report says. The thing about most IED's in Iraq was that they were laid off to the side and were commonly surface laid. In Afghanistan they try and make sure the damn thing is right underneath you when your wheel hits it. I don't think tanks are built to handle this.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think it would be smart to not get too far into the weeds of what works and doesn’t work in disabling a M1 Abrams tank or what they are good/not-good for when they are heading to Afghanistan (OPSEC).

As for the idea that bringing tanks into Afghanistan will give the impression of occupation, I would say not anymore than what has already been done with the other amount of equipment, troops and facilities. I am not disagreeing with the thought that it will give the wrong message of the current strategy being used, but I think we are way past that as we currently debate the issue.

 

[surgicalcric]

I am not now nor ever have argued that we have sent the wrong message with the amount of troops and equipment on the ground. It has been an issue since the onset of the war. We didn't listen then and are continuing to ignore those that are telling us we are fucking it up by the numbers.

And if we aren't going to listen why are we still there? Its obvious attrition of the enemy isn't decreasing the number(s) of those willing to kill us.

 

[ÉIREGOBRÁCH1922]

Agree with who?

No one has made the argument that the M1 isn't sexy. Nor am I arguing that the ground commander shouldn't get what he asks for. What I am questioning is the decision itself in the context of COIN.

The trouble is us continuing to say we aren't an occupying force (similar to the Soviets) but our actions are saying something different. We were warned about this back in early 2002; we didn't listen then and it appears we still aren't.

Figure of expression. As in I agree you (US Forces) need tanks for support. I agree with what you wrote regarding the Soviets. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[vsquared]

I am in Afghanistan right now. Tanks are working great. I won't say how they are used for OPSEC reasons but, needless to say, we love hearing them go off in the middle of the night. We have a game we play called Spotter. Everytime we hear a tank shoot, someone tries to say "Spotter" as fast as they can over the radio. You can guess what that means.

Another thing. Why does everyone mention air and tanks for support but not artillery? Arty can provide precision munitions and hit the target at an angle no one else can. Not talking mortars but the big guns. Thoughts?

 

[x SF med]

It's best not to discuss munitions, gear, weapons tactics and usage of these items to maintain the safety fo all those involved in the fight. Common sense people... I don't care what gets discussed on other boards, let's keep this from getting specific, please.

 

[Polar Bear]

Napalm Sticks to Kids

 

[Trip_Wire]

Perhaps, we should ask the Russians about the use of Tanks in the 'Stan. I think they had a lot of experience with that.

 

[QC]

Napalm Sticks to Kids

Softly softly fall the snowflakes...
Tanks have been downplayed and written off time and time again and end up proving themselves

 

[Rookie]

Isn't Afghanistan mostly mountainous terrain? I believe it was De Saxes's Reveries On The Art Of War he states something similar to this: plains=cavalry, mountains=infantry.

The tanks have a much higher chance of getting destroyed in the mountains. It will have limited maneuverability and therefore limited effectiveness. I don't know the situation though, I hope the generals know what their doing and there isn't some politician saying "we don't have tanks thats why were losing"

just my 2cents from my limited knowledge ;)

 

[AWP]

Isn't Afghanistan mostly mountainous terrain? I believe it was De Saxes's Reveries On The Art Of War he states something similar to this: plains=cavalry, mountains=infantry.

The tanks have a much higher chance of getting destroyed in the mountains. It will have limited maneuverability and therefore limited effectiveness. I don't know the situation though, I hope the generals know what their doing and there isn't some politician saying "we don't have tanks thats why were losing"

just my 2cents from my limited knowledge ;)

I'd drag out a map of Afghanistan if I were you. Down south it is pretty open and flat as well as parts of the west. The east and north especially are nothing but mountains and valleys.

 

[Rookie]

I'd drag out a map of Afghanistan if I were you. Down south it is pretty open and flat as well as parts of the west. The east and north especially are nothing but mountains and valleys.

Now that I've looked at a topo map(to lazy to do it earlier ) as long as the tanks stay in Helmand it won't be nearly as bad Kandahar. The map still does show some frequent elevation changes. As long as their employed correctly they shouldn't be limited too much. Like I said earlier I don't know the situation and not much expertise, so I can't say much.

Sure would be a shame to see taliban jumping around on a beautiful Abrams tank on cnn.

 

[Trip_Wire]

In Korea most of the time our tanks were dug in and used as Arty., in the latter part of that war. The NK's used their tanks to good advantage in the initial invasion; however, they were pretty much road bound, as they don't run good in the rice paddies. Perhaps if we had the 3.5 Bazooka instead of the WWII 2.36 Rocket, they wouldn't have been so useful.