View Full Version : U.S. Sends Battle Tanks to Afghanistan
BillBoard
24th November 2010, 01:01 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/19/report-deploying-battle-tanks-afghanistan/
In a move signaling a major escalation in the offensive against the Taliban, the U.S. military is deploying heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war.
The company of M1 Abrams tanks, each weighing in at 68 tons and propelled by jet engine, are equipped with 120mm guns that can destroy a house from more than a mile away.
"The tanks bring awe, shock and firepower," an officer familiar with the tanks told the Post. "It's pretty significant."
The tanks will initially be used by Marines engaged in an intense firefight with Taliban cells in the country's southwest province of Helmand, the newspaper said, giving American ground forces the power to target insurgents with a longer range and more lethal punch than from any other U.S. military vehicle.
The added artillery comes amid the fiercest coalition operation against the Taliban since fighting began in 2001, several NATO commanders told the Post. In October alone, U.S. and NATO aircraft unleashed more than 1,000 bombs and missiles on insurgents -- more than any single month since the war began.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/19/report-deploying-battle-tanks-afghanistan/#ixzz16EgklKFy
cthulu
24th November 2010, 01:07 PM
Thankfully, no cola and higher taxes for americans. Land of the free!
Apparition
24th November 2010, 01:19 PM
And so the unwinnable war continues while the empire continues to collapse.
I feel nothing but sadness and disappointment.
Libertarian_Guard
24th November 2010, 01:24 PM
Another step forward in our strategy of winning hearts & minds?
http://i53.tinypic.com/2cxst3q.jpg
The Afghani’s should have said thanks, but no tanks!
BillBoard
24th November 2010, 01:27 PM
The Iranians must be shitting bricks. Nice pincer movement preparation.
Spectrism
24th November 2010, 01:31 PM
I don't know how it took 9 years to put the first tanks on the ground! If they really intended to clean house over there, I would have expected a dozen strike forces that could fly out of defended pockets and chew up the roving bands when they leave the hill country. Maybe they figured the helicopters were sufficient. Now that they have waited unti the insurgents have anti-aircraft missiles, they will have to use ground forces.
The execution of this whole thing seems too much like VietNam. Politicians using young lives for their agendas.
I would have wiped out Pakistan long ago and given it to India as a friendship gift.
But the reality is that we had no real basis for war here and we did not need to make enemies here. No... there are other reasons for stepping in here and largely figured into those reasons is China.
Libertarian_Guard
24th November 2010, 01:43 PM
Well, it worked in Iraq.
http://i9.tinypic.com/2mn10lz.jpg
mick silver
24th November 2010, 01:57 PM
hell i didnt think tanks work well in mountains . i bet this scares the crap out of them
BillBoard
24th November 2010, 02:04 PM
Some history-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
mike88
24th November 2010, 02:40 PM
"where empires go to die"
Book
24th November 2010, 02:45 PM
The Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) is a tank plant located in Lima, Ohio. It is a Government-Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility currently operated by General Dynamics Land Systems.
Its all about the STOCK of this defense contractor. Somebody is getting rich.
:oo-->
Dogman
24th November 2010, 02:54 PM
They need the info to tweak the m-1 Abrams armor more!
We really need to pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan In the long run
we will not make a lick of difference.
Spectrism
24th November 2010, 03:07 PM
Some of you have no idea what a company of tanks can do. I would feel sorry for those poor bastards who have to fight against tanks that are being used properly.
mike88
24th November 2010, 03:16 PM
fuel to power the tanks travels a real long supply line, and those behomoths use a lot of it. Think german armored thrust in winter 1944 ardennes forest. The terrain is hard on tracks and engines also. hope for the sake of the crews this is a real short term plan.
Spectrism
24th November 2010, 03:26 PM
fuel to power the tanks travels a real long supply line, and those behomoths use a lot of it. Think german armored thrust in winter 1944 ardennes forest. The terrain is hard on tracks and engines also. hope for the sake of the crews this is a real short term plan.
All true. But the PROPER use of these will not be conventional war with boundaries drawn with lines of demarcation. The tanks will be housed in protected perimeters- forts... and sent out on limited combined arms forays. Consider that there are drones, satellites and high flyers scanning the battlefield. They can locate a force that makes the mistake of being seen in a group and travelling too far from the nasty terrain... or getting blocked in.
Another use is to put them 4 or 5 at a time in outposts where snipers shoot from the hills. The telescopic sights on that tank will beat any sniper out there. Thermal sights will find their heat signatures. If they want to play real mean, the laser range-finders will blind all the clowns in the beams. We are not as helpless as the Russians were.... unless our political morons run the battle.
silver_surfer
24th November 2010, 03:35 PM
As a former Army M1A1 tanker this is for nothing but show.
A company consists of 14 tanks.
An M1A1 holds around 500 gallons of fuel and when on the move needs to be refueled a couple times a day.
The terrain over there is going to beat the crap out of the suspensions on those tanks.
After a couple weeks on patrols probally a third will be out of service.
The tracks are susceptible to IED's that are killing all the other vehicles over there.
In closing 14 tanks anint going to do crap over there just "political theatre"
mick silver
24th November 2010, 03:47 PM
if i remember right the Soviet lost alot of tanks there
Glass
24th November 2010, 07:27 PM
As a former Army M1A1 tanker this is for nothing but show.
A company consists of 14 tanks.
An M1A1 holds around 500 gallons of fuel and when on the move needs to be refueled a couple times a day.
The terrain over there is going to beat the crap out of the suspensions on those tanks.
After a couple weeks on patrols probally a third will be out of service.
The tracks are susceptible to IED's that are killing all the other vehicles over there.
In closing 14 tanks anint going to do crap over there just "political theatre"
Do these tanks have a fire problem? Australia bought a bunch of these in yet another defence spending debacle and the word is they have a tendency to have fires internally although it's no threat to the crews. Defence knew battle tanks were prone to catch fire (http://www.smh.com.au/national/defence-knew-battle-tanks-were-prone-to-catch-fire-20100705-zxp7.html)
ShortJohnSilver
24th November 2010, 08:02 PM
THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT ...
sometimes I feel like sending the Joint Chiefs a copy of some of Rudyard Kipling's poems, like "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" and the full text of "The Young British Soldier" , which ends ...
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
silver_surfer
24th November 2010, 08:40 PM
As a former Army M1A1 tanker this is for nothing but show.
A company consists of 14 tanks.
An M1A1 holds around 500 gallons of fuel and when on the move needs to be refueled a couple times a day.
The terrain over there is going to beat the crap out of the suspensions on those tanks.
After a couple weeks on patrols probally a third will be out of service.
The tracks are susceptible to IED's that are killing all the other vehicles over there.
In closing 14 tanks anint going to do crap over there just "political theatre"
Do these tanks have a fire problem? Australia bought a bunch of these in yet another defence spending debacle and the word is they have a tendency to have fires internally although it's no threat to the crews. Defence knew battle tanks were prone to catch fire (http://www.smh.com.au/national/defence-knew-battle-tanks-were-prone-to-catch-fire-20100705-zxp7.html)
Ive never heard of a fire problem with them.
On the top of the back of the turrent are two blast doors.
There are hydraulic doors inside the turrent protecting the main gun rounds.
In the event of a fire they close and when the rounds cook off they blow the blast doors of the top of the turrent to protect the crew
steyr_m
24th November 2010, 08:50 PM
Whatever. Canadians have had the Leopard 2 there for awhile now. It's also a better tank.
bellevuebully
24th November 2010, 10:02 PM
It amazes me there are not more middle eastern pitchers in the major leagues.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.