The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on November 19, 2010, 10:28:13 AM
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/111910_abramstank.jpg)
In a move signaling a major escalation in the offensive against the Taliban, the U.S. military reportedly 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 Washington Post reported Friday, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
"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.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/19/report-deploying-battle-tanks-afghanistan/
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/111910_abramstank.jpg)
"The tanks bring awe, shock and firepower," an officer familiar with the tanks told the Post. "It's pretty significant."
Bush: Shock and awe
Obama: Awe shucks.
-
I wonder if Obama will let them carry live ammo.......or if he thinks they will just scare the Taliban into submission......
doc
-
Bush: Shock and awe
Obama: Awe shucks.
Instapundit has a great headline: "THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, TANKS WOULD BE ROLLING THROUGH AFGHANISTAN. And they were right!"
-
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.
Good to read. :-)
-
As glad as I am to see that they are willing to send in heavy armor, I wonder if they know about the propensity of the mujahideen to destroy Soviet tanks (I know, apples and oranges, our tanks are better, etc). This could be for the good, but if destroyed tanks start piling up, it could be the first step toward an Afghan version of Walter Cronkite's assesment of the Tet Offensive.
-
As glad as I am to see that they are willing to send in heavy armor, I wonder if they know about the propensity of the mujahideen to destroy Soviet tanks (I know, apples and oranges, our tanks are better, etc). This could be for the good, but if destroyed tanks start piling up, it could be the first step toward an Afghan version of Walter Cronkite's assesment of the Tet Offensive.
I've never ran a tank before but I've run plenty of bulldozers and other heavy equipment. 68 tons is "heavy" and just because it's a tank with tracks doesn't mean it'll go anywhere you want it too.
I hope the crews and commanders know best how to use them.
-
14 tanks...doesn't seem like much...I mean, it's a lot of firepower, but there's a lot of ground to cover.
-
14 tanks...doesn't seem like much...I mean, it's a lot of firepower, but there's a lot of ground to cover.
As long as it helps our troops, I'm all for it. :-)
-
14 tanks...doesn't seem like much...I mean, it's a lot of firepower, but there's a lot of ground to cover.
It's a company's worth of tanks. The Marines only have a Battalion of them in the entire Corps IIRC.
Trust me...you can do a lot with 14 Abrahams tanks in support of their infantry.
They've been in quite the shitfight in Helmand. IMHO you'll start to see immediate positive results from their deployment.
-
It's a company's worth of tanks. The Marines only have a Battalion of them in the entire Corps IIRC.
Trust me...you can do a lot with 14 Abrahams tanks in support of their infantry.
They've been in quite the shitfight in Helmand. IMHO you'll start to see immediate positive results from their deployment.
Always trust you on these matters, Tx. I know enough to know when I really don't know too much about something, and someone else does. VERY glad to hear that this many tanks can make a significant difference.
-
It's a company's worth of tanks. The Marines only have a Battalion of them in the entire Corps IIRC.
Trust me...you can do a lot with 14 Abrahams tanks in support of their infantry.
They've been in quite the shitfight in Helmand. IMHO you'll start to see immediate positive results from their deployment.
I think they have a battalion of tanks per Marine division. If they only have one active division, they have only one active battalion.
They might have a Marine Reserve division (stateside) with another battalion of tanks.
And, I'll back up Tx here--14 tanks can make a Hell of a difference. I'm sure that American Marine tank tactics (with infantry) are a lot different that Soviet tank tactics. The Abrams tank is a damn sight better than the T-72s and T-62s that the Soviets used.
-
For the record after doing some digging. There are two active and two reserve Armor Battalions in the USMC each with approx. 58 tanks each.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/battalion.htm
-
For the record after doing some digging. There are two active and two reserve Armor Battalions in the USMC each with approx. 58 tanks each.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/battalion.htm
I sit corrected, then. I still contend, after my time in 2d and 3d ACRs, that 14 tanks can do one Hell of a lot of damage. The SCOs used to use the tank companies of their squadrons as the reserve/exploitation forces. In MAPEXes, they would do a lot of damage.
-
The Abrams will have limited effectiveness in a mountaneous country like Afghanistan, but where it can be used it'll put the fear of God into the terrorists.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/2817153269_ca37bcf830_z1.jpg)
-
They should have used the B-1,B-2s and B-52s more then they did in Afghanistan. But thats just me. Those tanks and a load of HE rounds will teach AQ what its like to fear Armor if they are used right.
-
14 tanks...doesn't seem like much.
It isn't. They're basically going to be used as assault guns for dismount infantry operations, likely in sections of two. Which is really all you can do with tanks on a dismounted, dispersed threat anyway.
Don't get me wrong, they are valuable to the infrantry platoon being supported, and they have an unparalled ability to cover a lot of ground quickly and engage targets from close in to far out of range of infantry weapons with a superbly destructive weapons suite,* but this almost trivial force commitment of a single company doesn't change anything fundamental.
*The comment about 'if they're allowed to use live ammo' is not as snarky as it sounds. Depending on the division-level general du jour's desire to protect his ass from Congressional scrutiny (An artifact of both our 'wake up on a new planet every six months' rotational unit policy in SW Asia, and the politicization of - or institutionalized Congressional fellating by - far too many of our general officers), tankers in Iraq have endured periods in various regions and under various alleged senior leaders when they were not allowed to engage targets with the cannon at all, or only with specific less-effective types of rounds, or only after calling to Divisional headquarters to get clearance to actually use the main gun.
-
*The comment about 'if they're allowed to use live ammo' is not as snarky as it sounds. Depending on the division-level general du jour's desire to protect his ass from Congressional scrutiny (An artifact of both our 'wake up on a new planet every six months' rotational unit policy in SW Asia, and the politicization of - or institutionalized Congressional fellating by - far too many of our general officers), tankers in Iraq have endured periods in various regions and under various alleged senior leaders when they were not allowed to engage targets with the cannon at all, or only with specific less-effective types of rounds, or only after calling to Divisional headquarters to get clearance to actually use the main gun.
I kinda figured as much, hence the remark.........after hearing various rumors about ridiculous RoE over there, I'm not surprised. When are our leaders going to figure out that there is nothing "politically correct" about waging a f'ing war???
I can understand "winning hearts and minds" to an extent, and limiting collateral damage, wherever possible, but it seems to me that a lot of this crap is unnecessary, and endangering the lives of troops, not to mention morale.
Not that this is happening (however, I'm sure many stateside politicians would prefer it), but requiring a combat unit commander to receive an "advice of counsel" review from JAG before taking action is pretty damn sad, IMO........Our troops should never have to worry about being dragged before either a civilian court, a congressional committee, or a Courts Marshal for doing their job, even if something "goes south" in an operation.......
doc
-
I kinda figured as much, hence the remark.........after hearing various rumors about ridiculous RoE over there, I'm not surprised. When are our leaders going to figure out that there is nothing "politically correct" about waging a f'ing war??? I can understand "winning hearts and minds" to an extent, and limiting collateral damage, wherever possible, but it seems to me that a lot of this crap is unnecessary, and endangering the lives of troops, not to mention morale.
doc
I couldn't agree more Doc.
-
I just want to see a shit-load of dead terrorists...is that so bad?
-
I just want to see a shit-load of dead terrorists...is that so bad?
I don't have a problem with it. :fuelfire:
-
I just want to see a shit-load of dead terrorists...is that so bad?
I could enjoy seeing some pictures of THEIR mutilated worthless carcasses. Brains, intestines, splatter it all out. As long as it's THEM, my stomach would be just fine. Pile their skulls like Tamerlane did.
I'm becoming a bit barbaric, aren't I?
-
I could enjoy seeing some pictures of THEIR mutilated worthless carcasses. Brains, intestines, splatter it all out. As long as it's THEM, my stomach would be just fine. Pile their skulls like Tamerlane did.
I'm becoming a bit barbaric, aren't I?
Gotta fight fire with fire. :cheersmate:
-
I could enjoy seeing some pictures of THEIR mutilated worthless carcasses. Brains, intestines, splatter it all out. As long as it's THEM, my stomach would be just fine. Pile their skulls like Tamerlane did.
I'm becoming a bit barbaric, aren't I?
Isn't he the Muslim that required each warrior to kill at least 20 people per night and stack their heads in front of his tent. And then had to move his tent three times because the stack got so big?
Islam, the religion of peace my ass.
-
Isn't he the Muslim that required each warrior to kill at least 20 people per night and stack their heads in front of his tent. And then had to move his tent three times because the stack got so big?
Islam, the religion of peace my ass.
Nothing but a bunch of throwbacks Johnny.
Islam = :jerkit: