Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. deploying heavily armored battle tanks for first time in Afghan war
wapo ^ | 11/21/10 | Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Posted on 11/21/2010 9:28:07 AM PST by Nachum

The U.S. military is sending a contingent of heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war, defense officials said, a shift that signals a further escalation in the aggressive tactics that have been employed by American forces this fall to attack the Taliban.

The deployment of a company of M1 Abrams tanks, which will be fielded by the Marines in the country's southwest, will allow ground forces to target insurgents from a greater distance - and with more of a lethal punch - than is possible from any other U.S. military vehicle. The 68-ton tanks are propelled by a jet engine and equipped with a 120mm main gun that can destroy a house more than a mile away.

Despite an overall counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes the use of troops to protect Afghan civilians from insurgents, statistics released by the NATO military command in Kabul and interviews with several senior commanders indicate that U.S. troop operations over the past two months have been more intense and have had a harder edge than at any point since the initial 2001 drive to oust the Taliban government.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armored; battle; deploying; heavily; m1a1; tanks; usmc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 11/21/2010 9:28:13 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

So mountainous...I don’t know. Seems like the taliban could just avoid them.


2 posted on 11/21/2010 9:29:28 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
So mountainous...I don't know. Seems like the taliban could just avoid them.

I'll take that back....Petreuas must have requested them so there must be a new plan...both defense and offense.

3 posted on 11/21/2010 9:30:56 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“further escalation in the aggressive tactics”

Huh? Our guys have had their hands tied for months now, have to get permission from God to do just about any combat operations.


4 posted on 11/21/2010 9:39:19 AM PST by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing leftists and their fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Excellent. Now we can crush all those hostile armored units that have been pinning down our men and holding up victory.


5 posted on 11/21/2010 9:49:58 AM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The author is an idiot. The M1 is not a “hevily armored” tank, it is a “main battle tank”. There ARE “light tanks” in the inventory, but there is no such thing as a “heavily armored tank”.

The phrase is a pejorative, I think.


6 posted on 11/21/2010 9:56:30 AM PST by MortMan (To Obama "Kill them all and let [God] sort them out" is an abortion slogan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Just drop a couple of clusters & be done with them.


7 posted on 11/21/2010 9:58:00 AM PST by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Bait, perhaps?


8 posted on 11/21/2010 9:58:17 AM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

Yes, and maybe sometime somebody will say exactly what victory is.


9 posted on 11/21/2010 9:59:21 AM PST by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The perfumed princes of the Pentagon strike again.

This is going to be a supersized clusterf*ck.

You do not use armor against insurgents.

The French tried it in IndoChina and Algeria.

The United States tried it in Vietnam

The Soviets tried it in AFGHANISTAN.

At best, you control the immediate surrounding but you can’t hold and keep territory.

At worst, you get your ass shot all to hell in ambushes.

And how do you get the M-1’s in to Afghanistan?

You fly them in on C-5’s - One at a time!

Afghanistan was and should have always been a Special Forces show.

But since it’s the only game in town, and all the conventional force generals got to get their ribbons and get their tickets stamped.

Idiots.


10 posted on 11/21/2010 10:03:40 AM PST by PanzerKardinal (Some things are so idiotic only an intellectual would believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The curious thing is how exactly they get there. They must be flying these in...maybe two at a time on a C-5...because they have no seaports to use in this land-locked country.


11 posted on 11/21/2010 10:03:52 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The South is not that mountainous. BTW the Northern Alliance uses old Soviet tanks in the mountains to great effect. Most are stationary rust buckets but the guns still work.
12 posted on 11/21/2010 10:05:39 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (What flavor Kool-aid are you drinking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal

I was a tanker for fifteen years. We didn’t even train for any counterinsurgency ops, that was left to the infantry and special forces. MOUT gave us the willies; a tank downtown was a delicious target to anyone looking down at it.

I flew helicopters in Vietnam; one of our local landmarks was a knocked out M48 tank in a clearing. When all your enemy has for mobility is shank’s mare, he has the advantage over anything bigger; a cheap RPG can kill a million dollar vehicle and that sort of thing.

The M1 Abrams is the world’s best tankbuster (with a bow to the A-10 Warthog). But maybe they will use it as highly mobile artillery in a direct fire role. And if they can cage it up like the Stryker, it can survive RPGs. But the only sensible strategy is the classical one: tanks deployed in combined arms operations (they can’t survive without the infantry!).

Just don’t know about this. But hey, I retire in two months.


13 posted on 11/21/2010 10:20:24 AM PST by elcid1970 ("O Muslim! My bullets are dipped in pig grease!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Great post. And thank you for your years of service!


14 posted on 11/21/2010 10:27:26 AM PST by piytar (There is evil. There is no such thing as moderate evil. Never forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal; Nachum


The United States is to follow Canada's lead by deploying battle tanks to southern Afghanistan. Canada has used Leopard tanks in Kandahar since 2007, often in support of coalition operations, as seen in this photo taken last year when a Leopard was involved in a mission in Zhari District alongside US infantry and US Army Kiowa attack helicopters.
15 posted on 11/21/2010 10:30:11 AM PST by caveat emptor ( Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal
I can't say that I see the logic in this either. The article says, "will allow ground forces to target insurgents from a greater distance - and with more of a lethal punch - than is possible from any other U.S. military vehicle.". But, that ignores that infantry commanders already have easy access to 81MM mortars. I believe (although I'm not positive), that those mortars have an effective range that is at least 1K meters further than that of an M1.

Is a tank faster than a mechanized mortar platoon. Sure, but they aren't that much faster.

16 posted on 11/21/2010 10:30:18 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That worked so well for the Russians.
BTW, are they sending ammunition too?


17 posted on 11/21/2010 10:33:21 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal

Where did you get all of your military knowledge and experience? It sounds like you picked most of it up from playing electronic games.

A simple Google search should bring you to a picture of the Presidential Palace in Saigon in 1975. Exactly what sort of insurgent apparatus is that in the photo? Armor has been employed in most conflicts around the world since its invention across the continuum of warfare. You can find examples of successful and unsuccessful use at each point along the continuum


18 posted on 11/21/2010 10:35:18 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

We use some at Stevens Pass, WA for the same purpose (shoot the mountains).


19 posted on 11/21/2010 10:40:21 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucwbRjx9_Qc


20 posted on 11/21/2010 10:40:41 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson