Tanks but no tanks..Why heavy armor will not save Afghanistan.
Interesting article with many assumptions by the author. I don't agree with them, but it always interesting to see other side of the debate.
Link to full story: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...s_but_no_tanks"You ask us to stand up to the Talibs while you hide in your tanks from their bombs," one elderly Afghan man said incredulously as dozens of other wizened elders from the powerful Afghan Mangal tribe nodded in agreement. The group was sitting in a semicircle on an oversized rug in front of several bowls of dates and nuts in a concrete community building that doubled as a school, police station, and meeting hall. Most of the men had a mixture of shotguns, old British Enfield rifles, or AK-47s slung over their shoulders, and several were better equipped than the Afghan National Army soldiers who accompanied us. A number of the elders were also leaders of the Mangal's arbakai, or tribal militia, that protected tribal interests. They mostly stood stone-faced as their spokesman recounted a long history of the Mangal's support for the Afghan government and then chastised me for the Afghan Army and coalition's lack of support for his tribe and our lack of presence in his valley.
As we discovered last summer during my Special Forces unit's multiday patrol into the Mangal areas, the two most populated Mangal valleys in eastern Afghanistan had not seen a coalition or Afghan Army patrol in nearly two years -- roughly since the introduction of the U.S. military's lumbering MRAP (mine-resistant ambush-protected) vehicles, which are incapable of traversing the passes leading to their lands. (As a specialized unit, we were allowed to conduct the patrol in Humvees instead of the MRAP).
Last edited by HK in AK; 11-25-2010 at 06:31 PM.
Good points brought up in the article. However, I don't think anyone in the decision making process to bring tanks in us under any allusion that this will solve some great problem. The abrams are simply a tool, just like you would employ a sniper. I'm sure the Marines would of liked to have them at Marjah and been able to utilize them to good effect.
That's true. Altough tanks might have somekind of detterent influence, I see no use for them there. Tanks are made to take on fight's with other armoured vehicles, not to provide fire support for infantry.
But, that's where they shine. Direct online fire support for infantry, guaranteed accurate MG fire & cannon fire couple with thermals....yeah thanks I'll take a few.Originally Posted by para944
I don't agree. The infantry will just hamper them. The tanks will have to move very slow, check if there's no one around berfore they fire, and I see no use for the main gun.
Slow is smooth....smooth is fast. Tanks did an awesome job in Fallujah and would of done very well in assaults like Marjah.
Slow is BS in my opinion. The Taliban obtained Thermobaric RPG rounds somehow and you can take out a tank with one of those an the Abrams is the biggest tank in the world. So if you're moving slow, you're an easy target. IMO we should develop pin-point artillery munition for situations like that.
Thermobaric is not effective as shaped charged. Thermobaric is more of a danger against soft targets. Pin-point arty munitions? Yeah, we got that already.
My guess is they are gonna be used for base defense or to help with counter-ambush
Nah, thermobaric munition is quite effective, have a look at the russian 9M123 and 9K115-2 families munition types. What munition are you talking about? Excalibur?
I don't see it that way. Both elements will give each other mutual support and hold ground more effectively, not to mention they'll have the luxury of close air support and indirect fire.
But Tanks are designed for mobile warfare not parking with some infantry around them. Depending on where they're deployed they'll be an easy target IMO, for example in the green-zones.
Okay, I can see how that can be an issue. I know that sending armor won't be the end-all solution, but if such tools are available, why not use them?
Why not send more combat helicopters? They're fast, they pack a heavy punch, the Taliban don't have that much anti-air weapons and their psychological effect on the enemy is enormous.
Yeah?! My god, how these yanks were capabale to use them effectively in Iraq as Infantry fire support?!But Tanks are designed for mobile warfare not parking with some infantry around them. Depending on where they're deployed they'll be an easy target IMO, for example in the green-zones.
No, tank is so "universal" tool, that it can be good in mobile warfare as in LIC as direct fire support.
Thermobaric munition is not designed to defeat armor, it is designed to defeat structures, infantry, non armored targets. The only thing that thermobaric warhead can do to a tank is damage optics etc. but will not destroy it, and change of optics is not so hard, besides this some tanks like Leo2 or M1 have auxiliary optics, well hided in armored gun mask, also simple and resistant. So firing a thermobarci warhead on a tank in such situation is just saying "hey I'am here, shoot me!".Nah, thermobaric munition is quite effective, have a look at the russian 9M123 and 9K115-2 families munition types.
Tank is better, it is highly mobile in rough terrain so it can avoid roads and IED's, have big gun and machine guns and takes more ammo than attack helicopter, have thick armor so old RPG's and light weapons will don't make much damage on it, it is big, nasty and scary. So it have same or even greater psychological effect on enemy.Why not send more combat helicopters? They're fast, they pack a heavy punch, the Taliban don't have that much anti-air weapons and their psychological effect on the enemy is enormous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
