It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Reaper2137Dimitri Dzengalshlevi... wow is all I got to say.. you say I'm an idiot and I get what he is talking about... yes their was an air war.. if you never saw any news about russians flying hyinze over there than your more of an idiot than I am lol.. the russians could have kept it.. like I said.. glass the whole country than we could keep the mines and not worry about china lol
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Good to know that you are being honest that you can't comprehend. I will repeat one more time, in wars whether its Nazi Germany or Afghanistan, don't assume that having tanks means being desperate. Which is the subject of this debate and the original poster mentioned. Perhaps when we had tanks in WW2 I guess it means we were desperate. If we were winning against Germany all we could have just used the P51 Mustangs to take out Nazi Germany without the Shermans because we already had control of the skies, just like using airpower in Afghanistan to take out the enemy even if it had no tanks. Bringing in the tanks in the European theater must mean we are desperate to try to win the war. Bringing in tanks to Afghanistan must mean we are desperate as well eh?
uh... I don't really understand your logic STILL.
Are you saying the Allies were desperate when they deployed Shermans to the lines? Because it appears to me that they were matching German armor. You know, tank vs tank battles? I don't see anything strange with this at all, it takes a tank to fight a tank. So what is your point?
I still don't don't understand your logic of not using tanks at all, if you are from Canada, you seem to be asking why Americans have yet to deploy it while Canadians have deploy their own Leos, same for the Dutch.
Tanks are effective in protecting the bases in remote places. If you seen insurgent videos you can see how it would be feasible for tanks to take on the insurgents without having to wait for airpower. Tanks don't need to be constantly moving around in the mountains, just positioned to act as portable turrets around the bases. We already have apcs and ifvs in Afghanistan right now. Why not tanks?
I have seen many insurgent videos and I am well versed in their tactics. I've also studied the Soviet occupation of 1979-1989 and watched many videos and interviews involved.
Tanks are designed to fight against tanks, or to provide heavy support. Taliban are fighters armed with AK-47s, RPGs, maybe some ATGMs, medium range rockets, mortars, etc. They are quick to attack and quick to seek shelter. They know the land infinitely better than any invading force could imagine. They are not conventional fighters, they are rebels.
There it is again with that mindset that tanks are useless. They are quick but are they quick enough when we have tanks to attack them instead of waiting for airpower? Deterrence is also good because of less attacks on bases if you are going to get killed by tanks before you pop your head to fire on the base.
Sure, it might be convenient to have a tank handy in case your checkpoint gets ambushed, but do you even understand the strategic cost of deploying tanks, nonetheless M1s? They are powered by a freaking jet-engine for one. Fuel logistics for an M1 is a nightmare in such climate and terrain. Fuel tankers are already major targets by the taliban. Do you not recall recent stories of hundreds of fuel tankers being destroyed or just plain missing in Pakistan? Or how about the fact that Pakistan has shut down important logistic NATO routes that would bring fuel in?
We don't depend 100% of the logistics through Pakistan or you haven't notice. And as I have said before the tanks don't need to be all around moving around, just acting as FOB portable turrets to protect them.
If M1s are there to fight the Taliban, then the Americans must have some pretty stupid and history-ignorant commanders. In my opinion, they are there to provide more deterance against other factions. Look at the American "discovery" of trillions of dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan. Fact is that the Soviets discovered these deposits in the 80s. China already controls copper deposits in Afghanistan and the US fears China could obtain control of these deposits too. This is why the US assumes ownership of these "new" deposits, and is offering mining contracts to other NATO members in return for their support (instead of withdrawal). Would these M1s be better suited to fight mountain rebels or Chinese Type 99s?
Then the Canadians and the Dutch are stupid as well! Tanks have been effective in the fight against insurgents if used right. Use your head sometimes.
So the Russians lost WW2 cause it could not be solved with military means? Holy cow!
WWII has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Get over it.
Vietnam war has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan but people like to compare it. Soviet-Afghan war has nothing to do with the current war then, thanks for pointing that out.
the russians couldn't do it because they lost the air war due to the united states supplying the afgans with stingers and weapons they would have lost and afgan would be russian right now lol..
People who resort to suicide bombing are losing.
And how are they losing, because Western media says we are winning?
Suicide bombings are desperate measures, and is one of the bravest acts a human could ever do. You may not like it because you can't seem to understand the feeling of being pushed to the edge with no other options to defend yourself or your people.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by deltaboy
I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive.
Oh sorry I forgot you yankee's were supposed to be about spreading freedom and democracy, but there're more chance of hell freezing over and planet earth returning to it's own freedom in a sudden freeze.
Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?
All you advocates of surgical pretences are pathetic.
etc.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Suicide bombings are desperate measures to what? Kamikaze didn't help win the war. 9/11 attacks were definitely a desperate measure by Al Qaeda. Suicide bombings in Iraq are also a desperate measure. Look what happened.
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I guess airstrikes and assassination squads don't work, better send in tanks now
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Seriously, the US didn't have Abrams units in Afghanistan yet? Canadians have had Leopard C2s there for awhile...
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The Russians are laughing because the US is doing exactly what the Soviets quit from. Afghanistan is where empires go to die so keep pushing deeper into it, America.
Originally posted by signal2noise
Will 14 tanks win the war? No. Will they shift the tactical dynamic when they are employed? probably.
Canadian Forces took some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan, directly to heart. Canada’s DND:
“The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles…. [Canada’s existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.”
...A common misconception is that the tank is primarily an anti-armour platform.[b/] This is false, especially in the environment in which we currently find ourselves fighting…. Equipped with a dozer blade, mine roller and mine plough in each troop of four tanks, the Leopard fleet of vehicles has restored tactical mobility to the combined arms team in Afghanistan through its ability to penetrate grape and marijuana fields, clear mine and IED belts and breach mud walls and compounds that were previously impassable to the LAV III… [which made] it more difficult for the enemy to sight defensive positions, while decreasing the risks to less protected coalition soldiers…. The enemy was kept off-balance… and the tanks were able to form a “ring of steel” around the infantry as they conducted deliberate clearance operations in urban areas. Both tank squadrons have used the dozer blades and ploughs extensively to conduct hasty and deliberate minefield breaches and break into complex terrain in order to destroy the enemy and extract personnel and vehicle casualties… [Having said that,] there is no system on the battlefield that has the capacity to neutralize without exception all mine/IED threats…. IEDs have occasionally detonated on impact with the implement, rendering it ineffective. A Squadron 2 RCR BG has used effectively the tank rollers…. [but that won’t help against] command detonated and remote-control detonated IEDs. Further, the rollers take considerable time to mount, they require a larger turning radius and they keep us on the tight, canalizing roads of Afghanistan – exactly where the Taliban prefer to plant mines and IEDs.”
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Clisen33
Soviet tanks in Afghanistan didn't seem to help much. In fact large Soviet convoys only presented more targets along mountain roads.
Only difference here is that M1s require more logistics to operate and they are loaded with DU ammunition. How can you say M1s are effective in Afghanistan when most of the country where the enemy is is only accessible by aircraft or goat trails?