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

[JMS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806856.html

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

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.

[zoony]

Not sure how much help they'll be up and down the Korengal, but I think this move is long overdue in general. The MO of roadside bombs and ****ty russian and Chinese made RPG's that can cripple a Humvee won't have the same effect on a M1.

I know if I were an insurgent I'd much rather see a column of Humvees coming my direction than a couple of these

[Bang]

Giddy-up. Long overdue in taking the kid gloves off.

~Bang

[Mad Mike]

Not sure how much help they'll be up and down the Korengal, but I think this move is long overdue in general. The MO of roadside bombs and ****ty russian and Chinese made RPG's that can cripple a Humvee won't have the same effect on a M1.

I know if I were an insurgent I'd much rather see a column of Humvees coming my direction than a couple of these.

I agree. If we are going to put troops in harms way, I want them to have *overwhelming* firepower. Having an M1 with you is like having an air strike with you at all times. no delay, no confusion in pointing out the target to some guy flying thousands of feet above you at 500 knots. Less chance of missing the target. Just point it at the bad guys and send them to Allah.

My only concern is that while an IED isn't likely to destroy an M1, the big ones can sure do a lot of damage. And I wouldn't be surprised if the bad guys start building even bigger bombs for just that purpose.

[No_Pressure]

The Abrams was made to fight other tanks. We're just giving them a more heavily armored target to take pot shots at. The Russians rolled a **** load of T-72's into Afghanistan and it didn't do them any good.

[Mad Mike]

So i decided to read the full article and this jumped out at me.

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. As it became clear that other units were getting the green light to engage in more heavy-handed measures, the Marines asked again, noting that Canadian and Danish troops had used a small number of tanks in southern Afghanistan. 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.

Just goes to show that there are morons everywhere. Thank god for Petraeus. McKiernan is an idiot. The last time there was a decision that stupid was when the Clinton administration denied the military request for tanks in Somalia for the same reason.

[Hubbs]

The Abrams was made to fight other tanks. We're just giving them a more heavily armored target to take pot shots at. The Russians rolled a **** load of T-72's into Afghanistan and it didn't do them any good.

This is very true, but I'd at least point out that the Taliban is pretty much fighting with the same weapons it used in the 80's, while the Abrams is light years ahead of the T-72. It's at least worth a shot.

[JMS]

Just goes to show that there are morons everywhere. Thank god for Petraeus. McKiernan is an idiot. The last time there was a decision that stupid was when the Clinton administration denied the military request for tanks in Somalia for the same reason.

Yep there is at least one Lee Aspin in every crowd.

[Mad Mike]

The Abrams was made to fight other tanks. We're just giving them a more heavily armored target to take pot shots at. The Russians rolled a **** load of T-72's into Afghanistan and it didn't do them any good.

T72s didn't do so well against Abrams either.

The whole comparison of this war to the soviet occupation is flawed anyway. The Soviets were fighting a much larger and far better armed insurgency with the support of the US and others. Most Afghans hate the Taliban. They may not like us being there but they know the alternative is far worse.

And the fact is that it's not just the weapon, but how you use it. Tanks are good for other things besides killing other tanks. All you have to do is load a high explosive round instead of a SABOT and you have a very effective anti personnel and anti building weapon that is virtually immune to small arms fire and can reach out and touch someone with great accuracy over great distance.

[Mad Mike]

Yep there is at least one Lee Aspin in every crowd.

In my years of reading and studying military science, I've learned that it's a phenomenon that happens to every army in peace time. In peace time, leaders are promoted for political reasons (internal politics, not the Washington type). They tend to be the ones who think in terms of politics and are least effective when a real fight breaks out. The only way to find the best war fighters is to fight a war. Unfortunately that often only happens after the failure of others.

[No_Pressure]

T72s didn't do so well against Abrams either.

The whole comparison of this war to the soviet occupation is flawed anyway. The Soviets were fighting a much larger and far better armed insurgency with the support of the US and others. Most Afghans hate the Taliban. They may not like us being there but they know the alternative is far worse.

And the fact is that it's not just the weapon, but how you use it. Tanks are good for other things besides killing other tanks. All you have to do is load a high explosive round instead of a SABOT and you have a very effective anti personnel and anti building weapon that is virtually immune to small arms fire and can reach out and touch someone with great accuracy over great distance.

That is true, the Abrams is a billion times better than the T-72 and the insurgents today have nowhere near the manpower, equipment, and organization of the late 70's and 80's. It is also well documented that the Soviets didn't use their tanks to their potential.

I dunno, I just can't really imagine where they're going to deploy them to play to the strengths of the tank. Isn't a large amount of fighting still concentrated in mountainous terrain or cities? The Abrams is capable of fighting in those locations but it is far from ideal for a weapon of that type. Wouldn't some of our more heavy armored personnel carriers like the Bradley be better suited for things like that? Is the armor too weak, or do they want a treaded vehicle?

I mean I understand the need to keep our soldiers out of the line of fire and protected, and there isn't really any better protection out there than an Abrams tank. I'm just not that sure if it will retain its full effectiveness in combat against the Afghans. I suppose however if its sole purpose is only to keep our soldiers out of the line of fire and safely protected then its a great idea no matter what.

[Redskins Diehard]

It will be interesting to see the tactical employment of these vehicles. The MBT would not have been able to operate in many of the AO's that we operated in in Afghanistan. And in Iraq they were almost exclusively relegated to base defense very early on. The things are a maintenance nightmare and recovery is a PITA. They are also very difficult to move around the battlefield. They will have to be delivered to a FLS that is C5 or C17 capable and I do not believe that most of the forward airfields meet that requirement. Since they are sending only one company I would be surprised if it is broken up into more than 3 pieces so it will be somewhat limited in how much area it can cover.

For those that think an M1 is immune to RPG fire you are incorrect. To the front armor absolutely. Rear grill doors...not so much. Even if not destroyed an RPG can certainly immobilize one. Then you are looking at a 60 ton recovery effort. The valleys remain filled with the Russian tanks that were destroyed in a very similar manner. Further, M1's have shown to be vulnerable to EFPs in Iraq. Again...even if it isn't destroyed it is immobilized.

The HE rounds and .50 cal and 7.62 coaxes are great weapons. I would be surprised if they deploy with a single load of SABOT rounds...no appropriate targets. That and the thermal sights are great for night observation.

I have had a fair amount of experience with the M1 both in desert and woodland settings. They are awesome in the desert in a fast paced, long range battle. If you shorten the ranges and complicate the terrain their effectiveness drops drastically. Hopefully they find some success.

[Redskins Diehard]

That is true, the Abrams is a billion times better than the T-72 and the insurgents today have nowhere near the manpower, equipment, and organization of the late 70's and 80's. It is also well documented that the Soviets didn't use their tanks to their potential.

I dunno, I just can't really imagine where they're going to deploy them to play to the strengths of the tank. Isn't a large amount of fighting still concentrated in mountainous terrain or cities? The Abrams is capable of fighting in those locations but it is far from ideal for a weapon of that type. Wouldn't some of our more heavy armored personnel carriers like the Bradley be better suited for things like that? Is the armor too weak, or do they want a treaded vehicle?

I mean I understand the need to keep our soldiers out of the line of fire and protected, and there isn't really any better protection out there than an Abrams tank. I'm just not that sure if it will retain its full effectiveness in combat against the Afghans. I suppose however if its sole purpose is only to keep our soldiers out of the line of fire and safely protected then its a great idea no matter what.

The bradley is also a "treaded" vehicle. The Marine Corps does not have any. Their equivalent is the LAV-25 which is a wheeled vehicle with the same weaponry as the M2 Bradley. I am not sure but I do not think the LAV has the same optical gunsights with thermal capability. It does have the same 25mm cannon that can fire multiple types of ammunition a fairly significant distance(at least in the Bradley we could launch the equivalent of a hand grenade 3000m day or night)

The armor on a Bradley can be destroyed by an RPG and I believe the same to be true for the Marine Corps LAV. Unless they mount reactive armor which decreases mobility.

The terrain, enemy, mission, etc does not play to the strengths of the M1 in my opinion. Not to say there isn't a use for it. But I just don't see it being a game changer. Especially in the numbers they are deploying.

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree. If we are going to put troops in harms way, I want them to have *overwhelming* firepower. Having an M1 with you is like having an air strike with you at all times. no delay, no confusion in pointing out the target to some guy flying thousands of feet above you at 500 knots. Less chance of missing the target. Just point it at the bad guys and send them to Allah.

My only concern is that while an IED isn't likely to destroy an M1, the big ones can sure do a lot of damage. And I wouldn't be surprised if the bad guys start building even bigger bombs for just that purpose.

Fratricide is an issue with an M1 just like it is with an AH-64.

The concern with an M1 is not really that it will be destroyed....it is that it will be immobilized. And then you have tankers out trying to change a track(and they are not the most schooled at small unit tactics) or and M88 trying to tow it away. You'll end up committing at least a platoon of infantry to provide security for that whole operation. Which could take hours.

[maxiumone]

So i decided to read the full article and this jumped out at me.

Just goes to show that there are morons everywhere. Thank god for Petraeus. McKiernan is an idiot. The last time there was a decision that stupid was when the Clinton administration denied the military request for tanks in Somalia for the same reason.

I was thinking the very same thing. Last month I got the pleasure to see Mike Durant (the pilot of helo and the one taken hostage) talk about this and was amazed by the story.

[jpillian]

Good post,s Redskins Diehard.

Our tank company was actually the armor quick reaction force for the Army when we invaded Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. We had a company of tanks out at the airfield on Ft. Hood, prepped and ready to be picked up by C5/C17s and head wherever. We were extremely thankful (though we certainly wanted to get in the fight) that we weren't deployed to Afghanistan then. From everything we'd heard, the terrain seemed extremely ill-suited for armored warfare.

Perhaps there is now an appropriate limited use case for a company of tanks somewhere in Afghanistan. I'd think this is a very limited, specific role/engagement they are being brought in for. A company of tanks is absolutely a drop in the bucket when it comes effecting Afghanistan. For some reason this story made the PR rounds, because really this move is not of any strategic significance.

Tell me when they deploy an armored brigade plus. That'll be news.

Two other points that RD brought up that I'll second:

-- An M1 is an extremely effective anti-infantry weapon. Holy crap -- you bring that puppy into any fight, and it's done. The coaxial M240 is a monster. It can reach out to over 1000 meters, and it is essentially as accurate as a sniper rifle. Normally, a weapon like a machine gun is used only for area supression -- they're just very hard to be accurate with out past 300 meters when used dismounted. But zeroed with an M1's main gun -- that thing can just be a monster. And of course the main gun will stop a fight in a heart beat all by itself.

-- The maintenance and logistics requirements of an armored company are no joke. If you are actively moving the tanks throughout the day, each tank will require 400+ gallons of JP8. That's a crap ton of fuel to get to anywhere at all remote. Compare that to a HMWWV where maybe you're talking 20 gallons of fuel a day. The logpac requirements can get hefty very quickly. And the maintenance requirements are no joke. Each tank -- while an extremely robust weapon of war, without a ton of daily maintenance and support can very quickly become a 60 ton paperweight. In Iraq, we very quickly stopped using tanks extensively for anything other than specific periodic operations. No general patrols or security operations. Replacing road wheels and track etc etc -- it's just not worth it to the overall effort.

[No_Pressure]

The bradley is also a "treaded" vehicle. The Marine Corps does not have any. Their equivalent is the LAV-25 which is a wheeled vehicle with the same weaponry as the M2 Bradley. I am not sure but I do not think the LAV has the same optical gunsights with thermal capability. It does have the same 25mm cannon that can fire multiple types of ammunition a fairly significant distance(at least in the Bradley we could launch the equivalent of a hand grenade 3000m day or night)

The armor on a Bradley can be destroyed by an RPG and I believe the same to be true for the Marine Corps LAV. Unless they mount reactive armor which decreases mobility.

The terrain, enemy, mission, etc does not play to the strengths of the M1 in my opinion. Not to say there isn't a use for it. But I just don't see it being a game changer. Especially in the numbers they are deploying.

Ahhh I didn't mean Bradley I meant the Stryker, but if the Bradley's armor doesn't stand up all that well, the Stryker wouldn't either.

[Redskins Diehard]

Good post,s Redskins Diehard.

Our tank company was actually the armor quick reaction force for the Army when we invaded Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. We had a company of tanks out at the airfield on Ft. Hood, prepped and ready to be picked up by C5/C17s and head wherever. We were extremely thankful (though we certainly wanted to get in the fight) that we weren't deployed to Afghanistan then. From everything we'd heard, the terrain seemed extremely ill-suited for armored warfare.

Perhaps there is now an appropriate limited use case for a company of tanks somewhere in Afghanistan. I'd think this is a very limited, specific role/engagement they are being brought in for. A company of tanks is absolutely a drop in the bucket when it comes effecting Afghanistan. For some reason this story made the PR rounds, because really this move is not of any strategic significance.

Tell me when they deploy an armored brigade plus. That'll be news.

I didn't know you were a tanker....glad I wasn't too hard on the small unit tactics! Your perspective will be invaluable in this discussion..if it actually goes anywhere. My experience with M1's was at Ft. Stewart...I was a mech infantry PL and XO that was task org'd to 3-69 Armor. Lots of training and deployments with them.

I can just see some Armor Battalion commander at 2 Marine Division asking why he is getting left out of the fight when all the other commanders are getting lots of deployment time. I don't think the Corps even has a full tank regiment in each division....I think it is only a battalion

[ZoEd]

Well, being a military man I know that politics and the affect strategy has on the people of the country does and should play a role in deciding what is employed in a combat situation. However, if the damn Marines are requesting a specific piece of equipment and they believe it gives them an advantage on the battle field, then give them the damn piece of equipment! It's not the bean counters in Washington or the idiot behind a desk in the Pentagon out there getting their asses shot off so how bout we give a heavy consideration to request from the EXPERTS in the field.

The M1 is a bad mother! When I was in Bosnia in 96 I was allowed to "play" around in one. The weapon system on this thing in absolutely amazing! We're not talking about lobbing in ordinance from a long distance and hoping to hit something. We're talking about precision targeting. Its truly amazing what this thing can do.

[Redskins Diehard]

Well, being a military man I know that politics and the affect strategy has on the people of the country does and should play a role in deciding what is employed in a combat situation. However, if the damn Marines are requesting a specific piece of equipment and they believe it gives them an advantage on the battle field, then give them the damn piece of equipment! It's not the bean counters in Washington or the idiot behind a desk in the Pentagon out there getting their asses shot off so how bout we give a heavy consideration to request from the EXPERTS in the field.

The M1 is a bad mother! When I was in Bosnia in 96 I was allowed to "play" around in one. The weapon system on this thing in absolutely amazing! We're not talking about lobbing in ordinance from a long distance and hoping to hit something. We're talking about precision targeting. Its truly amazing what this thing can do.

I agree to an extent. Consideration should be given to requests from the field. However in this case I would need a really good justification and mission set to commit to such a logistical commitment(I totally had forgotten about the fuel requirements!) We are talking about something of limited tactical value having fairly significant operational and strategic ramifications.

Maybe jpillian can clarify....what kind of airframe load does an armored company have? Is it 1 x M1 per C17 and 2 x M1 per C5? I think the M88 has the same requirements. And I am not sure but think that the only FLS capable of landing those aircraft are in Bagram and Kandahar. When we built the one at Salerno in 2002 it could only land C130's. Not sure if that is still the case.

[Mad Mike]

Fratricide is an issue with an M1 just like it is with an AH-64.

The concern with an M1 is not really that it will be destroyed....it is that it will be immobilized. And then you have tankers out trying to change a track(and they are not the most schooled at small unit tactics) or and M88 trying to tow it away. You'll end up committing at least a platoon of infantry to provide security for that whole operation. Which could take hours.

I'm not as concerned with fratricide (not that fratricide doesn't concern me but that isn't my point in the debate) as just being able to see with your own eyes exactly where the fire should be directed from the ground when you are in the fight rather than thousands of feet above it.

I don't claim the same amount of knowledge as you but I almost posted the same thing about immobilizing the M1. I agree completely. But for me the issue is that the marines on the ground there requested them, so I'm assuming they have a damn good reason and some sort of plan. So I'm just trying to point out what some of those reasons may be.

Thanks to you and other real pros for contributing to this thread and of course, as always, for your service.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not as concerned with fratricide (not that fratricide doesn't concern me but that isn't my point in the debate) as just being able to see with your own eyes exactly where the fire should be directed from the ground when you are in the fight rather than thousands of feet above it.

I don't claim the same amount of knowledge as you but I almost posted the same thing about immobilizing the M1. I agree completely. But for me the issue is that the marines on the ground there requested them, so I'm assuming they have a damn good reason and some sort of plan. So I'm just trying to point out what some of those reasons may be.

Thanks to you and other real pros for contributing to this thread and of course, as always, for your service.

Thank you. Certainly didn't mean to take a confrontational position if that is how it came out. I am pretty passionate about this particular topic so realize sometimes things can come across more aggressive in nature than intended.

Providing close support from a distance is always going to increase the risk of fratricide. The same holds for an M1. There gun-target standoff range can be pretty significant and if they are providing direct fire support to say an infantry platoon in close contact with the enemy then it will be a risky situation(My M2 took 4 rounds of training 25mm into the hull and turret from my own platoon at about 1200m)

I am sure there is a reason. Damn good? Maybe. It is entirely possible that someone wants to remain relevant. Not saying that is absolutely the case, but I have seen it before.

[jpillian]

Maybe jpillian can clarify....what kind of airframe load does an armored company have? Is it 1 x M1 per C17 and 2 x M1 per C5? I think the M88 has the same requirements. And I am not sure but think that the only FLS capable of landing those aircraft are in Bagram and Kandahar. When we built the one at Salerno in 2002 it could only land C130's. Not sure if that is still the case.

Man I forget exactly (and I used to be a movement officer!) -- I'm thinking that technically you could get 2 M1s on a C5, but it seems to me that wouldn't actually happen for some reason (too close to their max load, perhaps?). However, to get an armor company anywhere by air would take approximately 15 C5/C17s. That's a significant, significant commitment of a strategic resource in itself. You better be getting a lot of bang for you buck for that.

And after you get them there, you'll most likely need to HETT (ginormous semi-trucks) them to the area of operations, otherwise they'll arrive needing significant maintenance. Do they even have HETT's in Afghanistan?

I'm not at all familiar with the logistics situation in Afghanistan, but I'm guessing it's still pretty hairy. I feel for these poor jarhead tankers.

[Mad Mike]

Thank you. Certainly didn't mean to take a confrontational position if that is how it came out. I am pretty passionate about this particular topic so realize sometimes things can come across more aggressive in nature than intended.

Providing close support from a distance is always going to increase the risk of fratricide. The same holds for an M1. There gun-target standoff range can be pretty significant and if they are providing direct fire support to say an infantry platoon in close contact with the enemy then it will be a risky situation(My M2 took 4 rounds of training 25mm into the hull and turret from my own platoon at about 1200m)

I am sure there is a reason. Damn good? Maybe. It is entirely possible that someone wants to remain relevant. Not saying that is absolutely the case, but I have seen it before.

I didn't take it as confrontational at all. I see it as a friendly debate about the pros and cons of this move.

I appreciate your real-world insight. All I have is books and wargames.

[jpillian]

I didn't take it as confrontational at all. I see it as a friendly debate about the pros and cons of this move.

I appreciate your real-world insight. All I have is books and wargames.

And of course all of our "real world insight" is probably bunk, as well.

The real question isn't what's being deployed, how it's being deployed, and what it can really do. That's fairly straightforward.

The real question is why it's being deployed now. And in my mind, why it's front page news. Seems like there has gotta be some political angles here.

Who knows what motivates the top brass to do what they do.