| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Marines to use tanks in Afghan battles |
| 2010-11-19 |
| Abrams tanks will be used in the southwest part of the country for the first time in the war. A U.S. officer familiar with the decision said the tanks will be used initially in parts of northern Helmand province, where the Marines have been engaged in intense combat against resilient Taliban cells that typically are armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs. The Marines had wanted to take tanks into Afghanistan when they began deploying in large numbers in spring 2009, but the top coalition commander then, Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, rejected the request, in part because of concern it could remind Afghans of the tank-heavy Soviet occupation in the 1980s. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #16 Let's see if this works. It maybe that the Afghans will fight better if there is a tank nearby. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2010-11-19 15:34 |
| #15 Tanks, along with being anti-tank weapons, are also mobile artillery. I can understand the Marines wanting them for back-up, especially against insurgents with RPGs. Frankly, if I were a Marine, I'd wish we still had ONTOS! Nothing like having six 106mm recoilless on a mounted chassis for fire suppression, especially with some of the new "smart" rounds. I KNOW the Russians built a pipeline system throughout Afghanistan during their occupation. Why haven't we revitalized that system, and buy our POL products from Russia? It would be a lot better than shipping it up from Karachi. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-11-19 14:52 |
| #14 This is intriguing in many ways, so here are some questions from ignorance: 1 - We have plenty of varied armor already in use there, so it cannot be wholly a question of anti-IED plans. Thus, what does an Abrams get for the USMC? Others above noted all sorts of other, lesser AFVs than the main battle tank - does it offer that much main-gun effect? 2 - Is the logistics that much of an issue? Sure new and different parts/maintenance/servicing, but the Minderbinders have been there nine years already so it's not as if we need build all anew. 3 - I understand it's a limited addition (i.e. very few tanks, <50) so is this more a tactical move than strategic? 4 - Finally, of course, where is the strategy? What is the POTUS up to, how about Gen. P? If this is a tactic to win the battle of Helmand, what's next? Given that the only real exit strategy is victory, how does this matter at all? |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-11-19 14:32 |
| #13 Article on alternatives to shipping military supplies through Pakistan: NATOÂ’s problem is that it has not developed good alternatives to the Pakistani routes The constrained capacity of ISAF strategic airlift restricts the goods that can be sent by air to Afghanistan to only small volumes of the most important supplies, such as weapons, ammunition, and critical equipment as well as soldiers, who enter and leave Afghanistan via Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. NATO opened the so-called Northern Distribution Network (NDN) in 2009 in part to hedge its risks. The NDN, which like the Pakistani routes is used for non-lethal supplies and equipment, connects Baltic and Caspian ports with Afghanistan via Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Today, approximately 30 percent of all NATO transit to Afghanistan goes through the NDN, either through Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, or alternately through the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. The 5,000 kilometer pan-Russian transportation network involves the delivery of supplies to European ports, where they are loaded onto railway carriages or airplanes and sent through Russia to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. From there, the cargo is placed on trucks or trains for shipment into Afghanistan.. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-11-19 14:29 |
| #12 Obviously, other people (like, ummm, the Marines!) know more about this, but I'm curious. The long history of armor theory that evolved from WWI spread between the line of tank heavy units to fight major tank battles and that of an infantry support weapon. The Marines have always followed the latter mode in most utilization whether it was island hopping in WWII, the Vietnam conflict and elsewhere. Their utilization in the First Gulf War was unusual for them as an element in a tank heavy attack which has been more an Army thing [who's original doctrine and mission evolved from a potential Central Europe fight]. To a Marine, the tank is a nice mobile hard point with fire power to work with. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-11-19 14:21 |
| #11 I know that the US military has been quietly developing heavy lift airships, but its real monster, the WALRUS HULA was discontinued for unknown reasons, a darned shame unless it was for technical reasons. Now a company is building the Aeroscraft airship, which has some DARPA backing, but seems to be luxury passenger oriented. Hopefully, though, they have a cargo model that could haul lots of equipment, supplies, and fuel much further than Pakland or via Russia. When you have an airship that can carry 20 fuel tankers full of fuel, it should not be neglected as a possibility, all else considered. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-11-19 13:49 |
| #10 beuracracy at it's finest, onlytook nine years too come up with the idea. Also the Northern Alliance used them and there seemed too be no bitching about the russian afterthouhgt |
| Posted by: chris 2010-11-19 13:45 |
| #9 Why the Abrams? I can understand the need for some sort of infantry support tank but the Abrams is a main battle tank - a big heavy vehicle designed to kill other tanks. Obviously, other people (like, ummm, the Marines!) know more about this, but I'm curious. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-11-19 13:30 |
| #8 TW - many of our replacement military vehicles that are being convoyed up through Pakistan into theater are showing up vandalized or/with damage to engines or gas tanks. Would love to see a report on this conduct by our so-called Paki allies by our own beloved MSM (aka Mendacious State Media). |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-11-19 12:07 |
| #7 The thing that concerns me is fuel for the things. At this point there are an awful lot of fuel tankers coming up from Pakistan that somehow catch fire before they cross the border. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-11-19 10:40 |
| #6 ...and the paperwork that goes along with it. It's not just the tank. It's the spare parts and POL. It's the second level and depot maintenance guys and the support imprint they have to make to be in country, along with their own log support to keep them there. Just more log bandwidth so to speak to eat up the limited lift input we have to that part of the world. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-11-19 08:49 |
| #5 The track maintenance alone makes me queasy. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-11-19 08:21 |
| #4 I'd like to say more on this but since this is an open forum and due to opsec I can't give numbers and dates about the tanks. Let's just say our biggest worry about them is building the parts blocks needed to keep them consistently up and running. Also, I'm not sure the talibunnies have an IED (yet) that's robust enough to really hurt an Abrams. Not even for a mobility kill, although granted - backhauling an Abrams in douchebagistan because of the terrain would be a bitch. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-11-19 08:05 |
| #3 Canadians have been using tanks in Afghanistan for years now (admittedly, because that is all we have got). http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rab8cxw1YfM |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2010-11-19 07:31 |
| #2 Where do they get these BS ideas from? I'd think seeing a bunch of white guys with guns would be enough to remind them of soviets. Well, at least we have tanks now, watch out of IEDs! |
| Posted by: Jeremiah Flainter9609 2010-11-19 01:04 |
| #1 Pi$$es me off. Leadership gets their panties all in a wad when a muzzie might get their acid-throwing, goat-buggerin feelings hurt. And all the while soldiers and Marines are dying. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2010-11-19 00:52 |