M1 Abrams Tanks Slated for Deployment in Afghanistan

[Baff1 0]

Recoilless rifles that are donkey portable can't destroy an mbt. You get what your pay for. I get your point though that if there was tanks to worry about in Iraq, there certainly aren't anymore in Afghanistan.

I don't think the Taliban use many tanks.

It's more those Javelins I see on TV being fired at mud huts that really wind me up.

What a moronic waste of money.

Woot we haf teh Javelins just like in Call of Duty!!!

All my squadie mates are madly in love with the Javelin. But it's not their money they are spending.

I understand that you you should use what you have got but in the same films I'm watching them all drive by piles of captured recoiless rifles.

But it's too low tech for soldiers to get a hard on about.

If it came out of their wages they would learn to pick them up quick enough.

[ricbar89 0]

Recoilless rifles that are donkey portable can't destroy an mbt. You get what your pay for. I get your point though that if there was tanks to worry about in Iraq, there certainly aren't anymore in Afghanistan.

In Iraq they did.

[Dwarden 1125]

while MBT is really robust these days nothing is safe even the MBT ...

EFP can be dangerous to any type of vehicle especially if used in urban and steep hill around road areas

(in short you can set the EFP flypath to be sort of top angle and penetrate weaker points easily)

[max power 21]

In Iraq they did.

A donkey portable recoilless rifle...

[dm 9]

(in short you can set the EFP flypath to be sort of top angle and penetrate weaker points easily)

Or you can go the easy route and just bury it in the ground pointing up ;)

[MrBump 10]

Recoilless rifles have their uses but in terms of pinpoint "surgical" accuracy needed for an enemy that is purposely hiding among the villagers that you're trying to win over, only two weapons have the power and accuracy to cut it, guided missiles and the weapons of the modern main battle tank. The Canadians learned this from what happened in Pashmul, where artillery was used for wall breaching and to destroy strong points, but did much damage to surrounding civilian areas, after that they deployed accurate tank support instead to minimise collateral damage.

But it is more the versatility of the MBT that made it so successful for the Canadians, whether is is using it's advanced night optics, armour and battlefield presence to help secure casualty and vehicle rescue from IED blasts, or being one of the few weapons able to penetrate the grape huts the Taliban use as improvised pill boxes... they are also capable of being easily fitted with mine ploughs and rollers, this has to be one of their key abilities. I quote:

"At times they came to the rescue of lighter US and British convoys, especially when vehicles became immobilized by mines and IEDs. On one ocassion Dave Broomfield's tankers were called in to assist an American 82nd Airborne Division convoy which ran into a nest of mines and IED's, losing half a dozen of their light Humvees. Two of Strathcona's tanks, equipped with mine ploughs and commanded bt WO TW Hopkin and Sgt TP Hiscock, cleared a safe lane through to the US convoy and to each of its damaged Humvees. The lightly equiped US airborne troops were deeply impressed. It would not be the last time that Boomer's tanks proved their value in this way."

Kandahar tour: the turning point in Canada's Afghan mission - Lee Windsor, David Charters, Brent Wilson

In terms of looking at history, Soviet tank doctrine was markedly different to NATO during the cold war an their time in Afghanistan, and their tank design reflected this doctrine, NATO tank design however is well suited to the type of support work these MBT's will be deployed for.

[spooky lynx 73]

At first years of Afghan campaign we had some tank regiments deployed there. But soon all of them were withdrawn from A-stan as they had no place to use their capabilities. So, the only tank we had in 40th Army were those of infantry regiments and divisions, because tanks can be used in limited number of situations during service in A-stan. And all armor upgrades of tanks there soon faced easy and cheap countermeasure - increase of explosives mass in IEDs. Simple and effective. The same may happen with tanks deployed for ISAF: you get better armored vehicles - we place more heavy roadside bombs ans mines.

[moleman657 10]

It won't work, you can't use a sledge-hammer to swat a fly. Maybe if the Taliban were using old T-72s or BMPs it might but you can't flush a bunch of terrorists out of a cave or house with Main Battle Tank. Plus if they ever go into a built up area they'll be a massive target. Even though M1-Abrams tanks a hard as hell.

[Daniel 0]

It won't work, you can't use a sledge-hammer to swat a fly.

Tell that to the victims of B-2 bombing missions.

All assets have their weaknesses. As long as the commanders deploy the tanks where they will be useful, then there's no reason they can't be a decisive force on the field. If they want pinpoint accuracy, a lot of punch and a faster response than air support, a modern MBT is ideal.

Obviously if they start rocking up in built up areas, they're asking for trouble. As I said, that's down to the commanders.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Daniel

[Tonci87 163]

At least those Tanks will have an intimidating effect on the insurgents

[spooky lynx 73]

At least those Tanks will have an intimidating effect on the insurgents

I shouldn't say so. Some of that insurgents have been using tanks before NATO operation. And not only tanks but APCs, heavy artillery etc. Thank God that they have not enough money and support to buy modern anti-armor weapons, otherwise all that ISAF MBTs will become almost useless.