U.S. deploying heavily armored battle tanks for first time in Afghan war

[douglas9]

Source: Washington Post

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.

The pace of Special Operations missions to kill or capture Taliban leaders has more than tripled over the past three months. U.S. and NATO aircraft unleashed more bombs and missiles in October - 1,000 total - than in any single month since 2001. In the districts around the southern city of Kandahar, soldiers from the Army's 101st Airborne Division have demolished dozens of homes that were thought to be booby-trapped, and they have used scores of high-explosive line charges - a weapon that had been used only sparingly in the past - to blast through minefields.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806856_pf.html

[Selatius]

1. We're sending multi-million dollar weapons to fight a bunch of men armed with hundred dollar AK-47s

We've been through this. The last superpower that tried to stomp out a bunch of backward mountain tribesmen armed with AKs and RPGs bankrupted itself in the Hindu Kush Mountains.

Watch this little funny video and laugh at it:

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

[melm00se]

2. rule of thumb

bring a gun to a knife fight. or IOW: don't match your opponent firepower-wise, it just leads to more friendly casualties.

whether or not that will be effective or not is an entirely different matter.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. this will not 'win' against an insurgency

what it will do is increase the lethality of our efforts, and the casualties will primarily be civilian non-combatants, and as a by-product increase the level of non-lethal incidental damage that will further alienate the civilian population from our army of occupation. The bad guys will quickly learn to live with the tanks, as they have learned to live with the drones and our other big weapons.

[saigon68]

77. Yes Obama kill a few more old ladies

That's the ticket </sarcasm>

[StarsInHerHair]

74. with all those Iraqi ied's I couldn't figure out why tanks didn't

just roll up & down the streets clearing that junk out? & it would help if we RENTED those poppy fields from those Afghan farmers & grew food that then the FARMERS sold at the market & kept the money. It would be a helluva lot cheaper than what they're doing now. Plus I'd dynamite those "impassable mountain paths" & run bullet-trains thru them-I could do it with 19th century technology-jeeezus!

[hack89]

8. IED's are the only real threat to US troops

tanks make a lot of sense, especially on the main roads.

Secondly, Afghan villages are like little fortresses, with thick walls surrounding a compound. The tanks will come in handy there.

[social_critic]

22. The threat will change

If the US marines start using heavy tanks, then the threat will change. My guess is the Taliban will just target the tanks' fuel supply. In the end, the US forces will be defeated, the effort is being wasted because US foreign policy fails to deal with the core issues driving the Taliban.

[hack89]

24. They have yet to find a way to stop US supplies

that is a problem we solved in Iraq - our techniques to protect supply routes are very effective. We ran thousands of convoys all over Iraq for years with minimal problems. Afghanistan is even easier because the Taliban is not as technically proficient as the Iraqis and the open terrain makes it hard to hide from persistent US surveillance.

The Taliban is getting its ass kicked because they have not found any effective method to kill US troops consistently and in large numbers. All they really have is IEDs - which are becoming less and less effective. We are engaged in a major offensive against the Taliban and the drug lords in southern Afghanistan and they have yet to stop us. Their IED's become less effective as we target their bomb making teams and leadership. There is a reason civilian deaths are declining and it has nothing to do with the Taliban deciding to be nice.


None of this means that there will be a military solution to Afghanistan - I really doubt that it is possible. The problems there cannot be solved with military means.

[social_critic]

29. That's not what I heard

Maybe you should check the news and some maps. The US occupation troops in Afghanistan have been placed very far from the ocean. The supply routes from the South run through Pakistan, and have to pass the frontier territories, which happen to be the homeland for the Pashtun tribes which supply most of the Taliban fighters. The terrain is very rugged, and as the convoys approach the Afghan border they become increaingly vulnerable to attacks, which usually take place at night when they are stopped in areas which are supposedly secure, but do not have enough cover.

The supplies from the North have to enter via Turmenistan. Supply convoys travel to Kabul via the Salang pass, the only "safe" road through the Hindu Kush in the area. As it turns out, the area just to the West of the Salang is a Tajik ethnic area, and the Tajiks hate the Taliban (the Taliban being Pashtun). The tribes on the other side of the Hindukush are Uzbeks but there are some Pashtun mixed in, and lately the Taliban have been able to place fighting units north of the tunnel, so they can cut off the convoys.

The Taliban isn't really getting its ass kicked. Their move to place fighting forces north of the Hindu Kush shows they are just playing the wackamole game. And they are focusing more and more on convoy attacks.

Here'a an article from Time magazine about the topic, from last year. I particularly like the tale about Alexander paying off the tribes in the Hindu Kush to avoid having to fight them as he made his way down to the Indus river.


In trying to explain the worsening security situation on the roads, a British contractor recounts a joke that Afghans love to tell about themselves. It goes something like this: Alexander the Great was marching across the Hindu Kush mountains on his way to India over 2,000 years ago. The Greek had heard that Afghan tribes had fierce fighters, so he dispatched part of his force through the northwest, which was supposed to be the easier route, and led the remainder of his army straight through the middle of the Hindu Kush. The commander who had gone through the northwest, expecting less resistance, arrived exhausted and bloodied on the banks of the Indus River. He had fought every step of the way. But Alexander, who had journeyed through the most dangerous part, hadn't lost a single soldier. "How is that possible?" asked the battered general. "Easy," replied Alexander. "The chief of the Afghan tribes stopped us and said, 'If you want to cross the mountains, either you pay us in gold or we fight.' So I paid," he said with a shrug.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1928899,00.html#ixzz15ju896gk

My observation? US military personnel have a really difficult time accepting defeat. They rationalize it, but in the end, if they fail to reach the objective and goals, then I mark it as a defeat. And it has been a long time since the US military was able to do much good fighting anywhere. This of course is partly the blame of civilians from Johnson to Clinton to Bush to Obama. It is also partly because generals such as Clark and Petraeous are politicians, and they don't look out for the troops. Instead they try to fight glorious campaigns so they can come home to a triumph. But the imperial role doesn't wear well, and all we see are caskets, wounded, and a lot of money wasted. Like Vietnam, it don't mean nothing.

[hack89]

32. The troops have Burger King and other fast food!

I don't think supplies are real issue here if they have logistics capacity for luxury items.

[social_critic]

40. Afghanistan is getting real bad, buddy - and it's costing a ton

One Burger King at Baghram doesn't mean everybody gets to eat junk food. Supply choke points are a real issue. The reason why US diplomats are being very cozy with Turkmenistan's dictator is the critical need to have that supply route stay open - but that route stays open only if the Russians say it's OK. The Russians aren't about to lean on Turkmenistan's ruler because they enjoy seeing our troops stuck in Afghanistan - the more we bleed, the better off they are.

The military has been getting around the problem by flying more supplies in. Here's a little tidbit for you:

"As a deeper example, using a three-month window, between January and March 2009, there were 29,500 tons of cargo airlifted for OEF, statistics show. In that same amount of time from January to March 2010, there were 64,100 tons of cargo airlifted for OEF, more than double from the previous year."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123220441

Another comment from the same article:

"In continuing operations, officials said that at many locations throughout Afghanistan, mobility warriors will continue to go full throttle because "Soldiers and Marines depend exclusively on airlifters to bring them supplies they need to survive and overcome in the fight.""

In other words, there are many places in Afghanistan where troops CAN'T be re-supplied by land. It's all done by air because supply convoys are a weak link. The heavier the gear they deploy, the more of a logistics tail they need. And it's getting really complicated. If they are having to deploy tanks it means they're not being successful with the lighter gear. And it also means they'll need much more complex re-supply - or they'll keep the tanks in flat terrain in areas where they already got fuel stashed.

Afghanistan is a lost cause. It's being fought for face saving reasons. But the more they up the ante, the worse it will be. And our economy can't stand having these military parasites like Petraeous dictating the national budget. It's time to send the generals to retirement, and the soldiers back to the barracks where they should have been kept all along.

[hack89]

43. Things are not getting bad militarily

we are on the offense, they are desperately playing defense. The Taliban is not going to stop US logistics - they have suffered too many losses.

I have never said we will win in Afghanistan. It will be mess when we leave but it will not be because the Taliban defeated us militarily. It will be because there is no military solution.

[Selatius]

72. If we leave, it's probably because we could no longer afford an occupation.

You'll go into bankruptcy before the last tribesman puts down his weapon. It's that simple. You can boast a kill ratio of 5 to 1, and we did that handily in Viet Nam, but like the Vietnamese guerrilla fighters, some of the tribes have developed a reputation for simply fighting on, despite heavy losses. If people would simply sit down and study the history of this region of the world, they would understand that these people have never given up to anyone. They'd rather fight and die than be subjects of a foreign military occupation.

[soryang]

52. Great post!

The fact that tanks are being brought in really indicates that they are in trouble.

The Taliban don't have to "defeat" US/NATO forces. Rather all they have to do is keep breathing; stay alive and eventually our financial crisis, current account deficit, and budget deficit will force us out. The logistics situation is ridiculous. I saw a fuel convoy totally destroyed on a foreign news source yesterday. Of course, they were foreignors, so who cares? When your ground forces have to rely on airlift to get supplies, you are hurting. The hostile tribes along the supply routes have to be bribed, when they aren't the convoys are attacked.

Our government can ignore the people, and it can ignore the reality on the ground, but it can't ignore economics. This war will end and it won't be victory of any sort. It's just political musical chairs, who will be in the hotseat when the order to withdraw is given. The whole of NATO and the international basing structure has been reorganized to fight this stupid and unnecessary conflict. Where will it go when we abandon this diastrous conflict?

Oh yeah, wars destroy the economy.

[L.Torsalo]

69. So why promote this as a "solution"?

Furthermore, the past few weeks have seen massive destruction of fuel tankers and other supply trucks. The truth is the Taliban are winning as they always have doen and will do. Dreamers, American dreamers.

[daleo]

73. They will target the tanks' money supply

By inflating the U.S. debt while simultaneously moving U.S. jobs offshore. Ensuring that the rich won't pay their share of taxes is also a critical part of the plan.

Oh, wait. That's not the Taliban.

[JonLP24]

51. Tanks will not likely replace regular military vehicles

Supplies still have to be delivered and picked up from base-to-base, those convoys need escorts with the turret. Perhaps they would use tanks which is possible and has been done, but rarely used, because it significantly slows down the convoys. Patrols will still happen. etc.

Tanks and regular vehicles were used in Iraq, I have no doubt it will happen in Afghanistan. No doubt.

[L.Torsalo]

68. I see the only real threat to US troops

as being the absolute stupidity and moral turpitude of the leadership "class". Tanks will be effective clubhouses for soldiers who don't understand what they are fighting for.

[subsuelo]

34. We are the ones who are 'backward' nt

[truth2power]

3. Yes, let's demolish their homes and kill their women and children . Not that they would

be annoyed enough to consider acts of terror in the US. :puke:

[Kolesar]

7. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4621293&mesg_id=4621320

[hack89]

10. Taliban IED's kill more civilians then foreign troops

the civilians know who the real threat is. They remember what life was like under Taliban rule.

[Bragi]

14. Let me assure you of this

Once the U.S drags its sorry ass out of this dreadful country, the same drug barons, war lords, corrupt tribal chieftains and religious medeivilists who have run this backward and impoverished country for the last 200 or so years will resume running the place.

The U.S will just be remembered as one of a long list of foreign invaders who tried and failed to "civilize" the locals.

The only questions remaining are how many Afghanistanis and how many foreigners will die before the withdrawal.

[saigon68]

23. Well Put K & R

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.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

-- Rudyard Kipling

[Botany]

31. the Russian, the Brits, the Indians, the Mongols, the Turks, and the .......

and now we get to join the long list of people who went to Afghanistan fought, died,
and then had to leave the country back the native tribes. W had a chance in 2001
and 2002 we were seen as the good guys but no that asshat had to go and drag us into
Iraq which didn't allow us to finish the job in Afghanistan. The tanks are good only
because they will keep the Americans from being blown up by IEDs.

"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat their mistakes."

[truth2power]

53. And this...

'Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.'

-- Kipling

[Hardrada]

64. Kipling had asymmetric warfare down cold a century ago!

Orwell was right about Kipling. He said the Brit leaders of his time opposed Kipling's chauvinism but ended up quoting him all the time anyway.

[saigon68]

66. Yes ---How soon the Lesson Learned is forgotten

[Hubert Flottz]

4. We get those blown up so we can buy some new ones...

Maybe we can get a good deal on some in China?

[douglas9]

5. ZTZ99 Main Battle Tank (~US$1.9 Million in 1999)

The ZTZ99 (also known as Type 99, industrial designation WZ123) manufactured by China Northern Industries Group Corporation (CNGC) is the most advanced main battle tank (MBT) fielded by the PLA. First entering the PLA service in late 2001, the ZTZ99 provides a significant improvement in firepower, mobility, and protection compared to older Chinese-made tanks. As a ‘high-end’ MBT, the ZTZ99 was only built in a small number (~200) due to high unit price (~US$1.9 Million in 1999). These tanks are currently deployed by two elite armour regiments in Beijing and Shenyang Military Region respectively. Some of the ZTZ99’s technologies have been used to upgrade the less expensive ZTZ96 MBT.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99.asp

[hack89]

9. Still not as good as an M-1 nt

[era veteran]

12. Roger that

What is modular armor? Seems like a weak point.

[hack89]

19. The Israelis developed modular armor

the armor comes in modules that are attached to the main body of the tank. It has two big advantages:

1. easier to fix battle damage.

2. allows you to upgrade the protection of the tank as new armor materials and techniques are developed.

[era veteran]

39. I do understand but it is a quick much cheaper fix but

when you use: Chobham, RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh plating you don't have that worry. Individual Tank doctrine in different countries dictates design as well. The Israelis' Merkava series has forward engine and rear escape for crew survivability. The added weight of bolt ons decrease speed. Just a few thoughts from an old tanker.

[benEzra]

76. I believe the M1's main armor is modular as well, not just the applique's.

I may be wrong on this, but I think the main armor can be removed from the chassis and turret at the depot level for replacement or upgrade as needed. I will caution that I'm not a tank guy, though (my field is aviation) so I may be totally wrong here.

I do know that the M1 uses a very highly evolved form of the composite Chobham concept, and that a lot of the armor weight is depleted uranium (metal, ceramic, or a combination, I'm not sure).

[davepc]

50. I'm pretty sure some NATO (Canada/France/Denmark) countries had some Leopard 2's there already

France is running around with their AMX-10.

This really isn't anything new other then it's US armor instead of French or Danish or Candians.

e: reply to wrong post

[era veteran]

11. They don't get blown up

The armor is part of the combined arms doctrine, a better question is why has it not been there? The war, started using the Rumsfeld doctrine, is too fucked up to sustain now. I say get the fuck out of that shit hole now. If the Taliban returns and kills all the people that were against them why would that bother any cut & run people? If we leave, we should imply to what is left of the Kabul 'government' that we will come back and do what we do best. Occupying is not what we do. Killing & destroying is what we do. War should have been over at Tora Bora. // 11E40W1

[Hubert Flottz]

30. Tanks for the memories...

The Russian tanks never did very well in the Shit Hole. Just gives the locals something bigger to knock off. Generates income for the guys in the weapons biz though.

"Where there's smoke their's work."

[era veteran]

36. Russian tanks have sucked hind tit since the T 54

Instant junk, they all shine on. I still think we should de-ass Afghanistan ASAP. We can always go back on an in & out if necessary. That is what we do best.

[Hubert Flottz]

67. I'm glad that the only tanks I work on now days are 1:35 scale.

I'll never forget how much fun it was going cruising in the old M88A1.(Iron Mama) Talkin' about a rad ride that would turn Comerad's head.

[era veteran]

71. Nothing like the sound of an M88 in the morning.

I knew a guy who slept in his while we were in garrison. Vietnam had got to him bad. Fun, fun, fun on der autobahn

[TheLastMohican]

79. Very bold statement

The difference is that you need a bigger explosive charge to blow up M1 tank. That's it.

A tank in a column on a windy mountain road in Afganistan is targeted all the time. And then it becomes a roadblock and potential lock that traps the whole column in an ambush.

The Russians learned about it the hard way.

What was really good in Afganistan is ZSU-4 "Shilka" quad-gun mounted vehicle for close AA support that was used for close combat support - the guns could be elevated high up the hills and destroy any resistance during an ambush.

[Kolesar]

6. there have been relatively few reports of civilian casualties associated w/ the recent uptick in rai

... raids, airstrikes and explosive demolitions. Military officials said that is because of better intelligence, increased precautions to minimize collateral damage and the support of local leaders who might otherwise be complaining about the tactics. In Kandahar, local commanders have sought the support of the provincial governor and district leaders for the destruction of homes and fields to remove bombs and mines.

[Bragi]

13. So do the tanks come in before or after the drones?

Just wondering how these adventures in bravery work. Do the troops sitting safely in tanks miles away from the villages demolish what's left after the contractors working out of trailers in Omaha blow them up, or before?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. I don't know about contractors in trailers

But for an infantry soldier huddled safely behind a pile of rubble, a hail of bullets coming from a nearby building is a perfect reason to call a colleague in a tank for a little artillery support. Getting your helmet perforated with bullets can make for a bad hair day.

The people who really annoy me are the ones in the White House and Defense and State Departments who think this war is actually going to accomplish something.

[Nihil]

16. Woohoo!

Buy shares in Halliburton/KBR for the road repair no-bid contracts that
have just appeared on the horizon!

:evilgrin:

[formercia]

17. Speaking of which...

I wonder how many roads and bridges in Afghanistan can support the weight an M1.

Australia found out the hard way when the offloaded some refurbished M1s and found that the bridges to their destination couldn't support their weight.

[Nihil]

84. That'll be OK ...

... once they relabel the "weak bridge" as "an insurgent tank trap" ...

:crazy:

[nc4bo]

18. It doesn't matter what we send over there, Iraq and Afgh. are "wars" we can and will not win. EVER!

GET OUT NOW!!

We're spending trillions of $$ for what purpose? To create more fundamental fanatics? Spread peace and joy?

[subsuelo]

35. Also, the US never had any right to be there in the first place. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. +1000!

[Paper Roses]

20. I will never live to see the end of the horror we are inflicting on

so many parts of the world. It saddens me to see what we have done in the name of 'Democracy'. If we were not so high and mighty, maybe so much of the rest of the world would not hate us so and try to do us harm.

Sad.

[saigon68]

21. signals a further escalation in the aggressive tactics

At $10,000,000,000.00 a month---

"Let's get it On"

</sarcasm>

[SDuderstadt]

26. self-delete...n/t

[jayfish]

25. Let Me Know How That Works Out For Ya.

[Alcibiades]

27. Finally, some light at the end of the tunnel!

Everyone knows that conventional tactics are the way to win this sort of operation, none of that soft-headed stuff about counterinsurgency applies. The combined arms doctrine says we have to hit them with everything we have, and that includes the M1A! The combined power of our armor, artillery, air and infantry forces together can force those terrorists into submission! Only a namby-pamby liberal would think otherwise. Tanks are perfect for the terrain in Afghanistan! This is the only path to peace. Have we learned nothing from the Soviet experience? Everyone knows that the reason they didn't win was because they didn't have enough armor to support their infantry.



What's this? The Soviets, with an armored component that ranked number one in numbers and number two in quality, actually did deploy heavy armor in Afghanistan? Apparently so many that the number left behind is in the hundreds, and sit rusting as a reminder of their imperial hubris, within shouting distance of Kabul? Plus, they apparently lost 147 tanks in combat?

"Early attempts by the Soviet leadership to deploy large, combined arms formations to conduct a classic offensive and pursuit against Mujahideen guerrillas proved ineffective in a war that stressed the vital importance of small unit operations."

This is almost comical: nine years in, we are attempting what the Soviets tried and eventually rejected.

[era veteran]

49. Looks like a Russian motor pool

Junk at the factory. My personal favorite tank graveyard was/is at Graffenwohr Germany. The Russians tried numbers and old doctrine. The Mujahideen were good too. We trained them. I just heard Dylan Ratigan say tanks are useless in over 90% of the country. That was the same bullshit lie that was given to armor in Vietnam. I would like us to get the fuck out of country but I want my comrades/soldiers to have the firepower they need until we finally get out. That is a great image you posted. RFL
(11E40W1 & second generation tank commander.)

[COLGATE4]

28. Yeah, that tactic worked so well for the Russians. nt

[Javaman]

33. We. Are. Never. Leaving.

Now they are moving in 60 ton battle tanks. Do you know how much effort, time and money it takes to move a tank half way across the world?

Unless they are willing to let those same tanks rot there, we are staying for the long term. Hell, even the soviets, when they left, took all serviceable tanks with them. And they just had to roll across the border.

You think we are going to leave those behind?

They are there to be used.

We. Are. Never. Leaving.

[Bigmack]

37. Gosh... I'm gettin' a chubby just thinking...

about those tanks! Planes, tanks, drones... shit... I just love all that sexy war-tech. We can field the finest weapons in the fucking world!

One small problem, tho.

THIS FUCKING COUNTRY IS FALLING APART! Sorry, don't mean to shout, but I think a lot of people must have a hearing problem. They don't seem to be able to hear people crying for food, jobs, medical care, infrastructure... shit, everything a developed country needs.

We simply can't afford an adventure in Afghanistan. $100 Billion a year pissed down that rathole is going to do to us what it did to the Soviets.

All this talk about nifty military toys is sooo Old Empire...an Empire that we can't afford.

[placton]

38. what we REALLY need are some HIND helicopters

oh wait, that was the USSR (RIP)

[Ozymanithrax]

41. The Afghans were very good at blowing up Soviet Tanks. n/t

[backscatter712]

42. As the Russians found out, heavy tanks are not the right tool for the job in Afghanistan.

Tanks are big, heavy beasts that require a big logistical tail to support them. While rugged, even they have a hard time in steep mountainous terrain. Their armor is tough, but not invincible, meaning the Taliban will adapt by using bigger IEDs or RPGs, or use tactics designed to disable tanks, such as attacking the treads.

In guerrilla warfare, tanks don't work as well as we would like.

[formercia]

45. They also dig Tiger Pits in the roads.

Then they bait the column in to accelerating, so that, once the armor hits the pit, the crew gets creamed. They used it very effectively against Soviet armor. The recovered quite a few Soviet Tanks intact, but the crews were killed by the impact.

[Stella_Artois]

47. They seem to work well enough in some areas..

The Canadians have been using theirs for a year or more.

[fascisthunter]

44. Hey... the Soviets Couldn't do it, Maybe we Can....

dumb

Sorry folks, but democracy comes from within and will never come at the end of a gun.

[ProudDad]

46. Next up, tactical nukes

As long as it makes a butt-load of money for the war profiteers :nuke:

[TheWatcher]

48. BREAKIN' OUT THE BIG GUNS!!!!!!!! FOR FREEDOM!!!11111

USA! USA! USA!

ENDLESS WAR! ENDLESS WAR! ENDLESS WAR!

:eyes:

So fucking sick of it all.

[Swede]

54. Marines Receive Extra Firepower; US Tanks Headed to Afghanistan

Source: ABC News

Looking for more firepower in the tough fight against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, Marines are scheduled to receive 14 tanks next month, which would be the first time the U.S. military has used tanks in the nine-year war in Afghanistan.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afghanistan-marines-receive-extra-firepower/story?id=12192320&page=1

[Kennah]

55. More is needed ...

... so we can declare victory theater and go home.

[daleo]

56. The Soviets used tanks too

I gather that country is full of the remains of Soviet tanks.

[sofa king]

61. They weren't very useful there.

I presume our folks have another plan, since I'm sure their source is the same as mine. The Soviets repeatedly found that the Mujahedeen would simply not attack a Soviet column until it found itself in a valley narrow and steep enough so that the Mujahedeen could fire anti-tank rounds into the more vulnerable top armor of the tanks, while the tanks' guns could not elevate high enough to engage the attackers. The lead and rear vehicles of the column would be the first targeted, sometimes with remotely detonated explosives, so the ones in the middle couldn't easily escape, and the column would be raked with fire for a few minutes. Then the attackers would take off over the hill before the Soviets could fully deploy against them.

Eventually, the Soviet tankers learned to back into the ditches on the sides of the road in order to raise their guns higher, but then the Afghanis started planting anti-tank mines in the ditches. Eventually, the Soviets simply stopped moving through areas they couldn't completely cover with overwhelming artillery fire and air support. That suited the Mujahedeen, as it left the mountainous areas (most of the country) to them while the Soviets could only control the river valleys.

The NATO forces have been taking a totally different and considerably more successful approach, and I can only assume that the tanks are intended for more suitable terrain and circumstances. Because if they use them the same way the Soviets did, they'll start paying for it.

[TheLastMohican]

80. The application of soviet armor was different

What was learned from the conflict, you employ something less heavy but with better firepower such as "Shilka" quad-AA gun that could fire at 90 degree angle up the mountains, or BMP-2 which also had a cannon that could easily fire up the hill.
Soviets lost some 147 tanks during an entire conflict and at some points the tanks were used simply to escort a column from one place to another - in the mountains all advantages of a tank suddenly vanish.

[Moostache]

57. Thank god we can find money for THIS....food and unemployment though...not so much.

I swear its getting closer and closer to time for active protestation of our CURRENT government...we know goddamn well that the Republicans did not care nor listen to the PRE-WAR protests...its time to rattle the spineless Democrats in the White House now by turning out millions into the streets BEFORE they get voted out in 2012.

At the very least, we MIGHT make it harder for the Republican president in 2012 to fuck us up even further.

[grahamhgreen]

58. How musch will this cost the retirees - their lunch or dinner?

[Kolesar]

59. LBN duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4621293

[ProudDad]

60. Next up, tactical nukes

if they can make a butt-load of money for the war profiteers... :nuke:

[davepc]

62. Other NATO forces already have tanks there as far back as 2007

The Danes, French, and Canadians specifically.

[Twillig]

83. 14 tanks? That's one fucking armor company in the Army.

I guess they would be good for guarding the a bases.

Kill anything approaching in your thermal sight. That kind of thing.

[Swede]

63. Marines Receive Extra Firepower; US Tanks Headed to Afghanistan

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[Aristus]

65. Even an ex-M1A1 tanker like me can see this is a really bad idea.

We're just prolonging the inevitable. We're going to lose in Afghanistan. And we're going to lose bad.

We need to get out of there.

You can't fight terrorists with tanks, bombers, and artillery.

Sometimes the best way to take out a terrorist is with one guy, hiding behind a door with a .45 and a silencer.

It ain't sexy, and it doesn't enrich the war industries, but it works...

[Downwinder]

75. The problem throughout history has not been in getting into Afghanistan .

It has been in getting out. M1 Abrams tanks just make it harder to get out.

[seafan]

78. 'Using tanks this many years into the war could be seen as a sign of desperation...'

This makes me sick to my stomach.



U.S. deploying heavily armored battle tanks for first time in Afghan war

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
November 19, 2010; 12:12 AM

.....

Although the officer acknowledged that the use of tanks this many years into the war could be seen as a sign of desperation by some Afghans and Americans, he said they will provide the Marines with an important new tool in missions to flush out pockets of insurgent fighters. ....... 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. ..... This time, the decision rested with Petraeus, who has been in charge of coalition forces in Afghanistan since July. He approved it last month, the officials said.

.....

Although Petraeus is widely regarded as the father of the military's modern counterinsurgency doctrine, which emphasizes the role of governance, development and other forms of soft power in stabilization missions, he also believes in the use of intense force, at times, to wipe out opponents and create conditions for population-centric operations. A less-recognized aspect of the troop surge he commanded in Iraq in 2007 involved a significant increase in raids and airstrikes.

"Petraeus believes counterinsurgency does not mean just handing out sacks of wheat seed," said a senior officer in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency"doesn't mean you don't blow up stuff or kill people who need to be killed." ..... "Because Petraeus is the author of the COIN (counterinsurgency) manual, he can do whatever he wants. He can manage the optics better than McChrystal could," the adviser said. "If he wants to turn it up to 11, he feels he has the moral authority to do it."

.....

But many residents near Kandahar do not share the view. They have lodged repeated complaints about the scope of the destruction with U.S. and Afghan officials. In one October operation near the city, U.S. aircraft dropped about two dozen 2,000-pound bombs.
In another recent operation in the Zhari district, U.S. soldiers fired more than a dozen mine-clearing line charges in a day. Each one creates a clear path that is 100 yards long and wide enough for a truck. Anything that is in the way - trees, crops, huts - is demolished.

"Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?" a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.

.....

But nothing so starkly reveals the depravity of mind in this horrid war:

Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, "in effect, you're connecting the government to the people," the senior officer said.

Dear God, what kind of barbarism has overtaken us?

[lovuian]

81. We are Desperate Very Desperate

I have never seen a tank climb a mountain like they have in Afghanistan
this I got to see

[Rex]

82. See? Their hearts and minds couldn't be won with small arms fire.

Maybe a mobile 105mm can do the trick! 5.56 was just too small to win anyone over! :sarcasm: