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.

 

U.S. Deploying Heavily Armored Battle Tanks For First Time In Afghan War

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

U.S. Deploying Heavily Armored Battle Tanks For First Time In Afghan War


www.washingtonpost.com

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.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

M1 Abrams tanks during annual training
Pic: usmilitary.com


The deployment of the M1 Abrams tanks seems to have come about due to what looks like a stalemate in the ongoing war against the Taliban (Haqqani). These tanks which are being deployed in the 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 punch that an M1 Abrams packs:

Primary Armament

M68A1 rifled gun: fires a variety of high explosive anti-tank, high explosive, white phosphorus and an anti-personnel (multiple flechette) rounds.

M256 smooth bore main gun: The M256A1 fires a variety of rounds including APFSDS, HEAT, M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridges and XM1111 Mid-Range-Munition Kinetic Energy Penetrators.

Secondary Armament

(12.7 mm) M2HB machine gun.
M2HB or a Mk 19 grenade launcher.
7.62 mm M240 machine gun.
A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount. (A second coaxial 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun can be mounted directly above the main gun in a remote weapons platform as part of the TUSK upgrade kit).

Now that's some lethal firepower! But whether it's going to tilt the balance or not is the moot question. Those brigands called the Taliban are a wily band of fighters! But let's wait and see what happens.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Haqani is not Taliban, they were actually part of the Hezbi Islami group, which separated in to two, one under Haqani, and one under the previous Afghan prime minister Mr. Hekmatyar.

These are resisting fighters, Pakistan is trying to boost its own influence by asking America to call everyone Taliban, because the Taliban leadership is under Pakistani rule.

Such BS should end.

I can't wait until Afghanistan is an independent nation, but that is just a dream.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Handy things to have around if you were of a mind to attack Iran, either for incursions across the border or to resist potential Iranian moves against US forces in Afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This is a bizzare bit of timing. We are comming in to the last few years of coallition activity in the region, amid the pullout timetables set by Obamas administration and David Camerons government in the UK. That seems a strange time to be upping the ante so to speak.
Futhermore, throwing tanks at the situation seems like a very strange manouvre considering the amount of landmines and improvised explosives kicking about the place. Its only a matter of time before some clever sort amongst the Taliban (or other insurgancy supporters) figures a way to modify an IED to penetrate tank armour. Seems silly to give the Taliban a decently solid target to aim for in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


The MBT seems to me most unsuitable for the type of war the resistance is willing to engage in, even if they lack the munitions to easily penetrate the armour all they have to do is destroy the road under it to render it immobile and useless, particularly if it's a mountain road and the tank falls down a newly created cliff edge.

All the resistance have to do to halt a convoy and open it up to snipers and ieds is scatter metal or wire on the road surface or drains, every piece has to be inspected before moving on.

The conflict is unwinnable given our allegedly humanitarian aims.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
This is a bizzare bit of timing. We are comming in to the last few years of coallition activity in the region, amid the pullout timetables set by Obamas administration and David Camerons government in the UK. That seems a strange time to be upping the ante so to speak.
Futhermore, throwing tanks at the situation seems like a very strange manouvre considering the amount of landmines and improvised explosives kicking about the place. Its only a matter of time before some clever sort amongst the Taliban (or other insurgancy supporters) figures a way to modify an IED to penetrate tank armour. Seems silly to give the Taliban a decently solid target to aim for in my opinion.


Do you actually take in the timetable crap they keep shoving down the populations throats?

Do you know how many times the pullout thingy have changed? Think about Iraq for example, I can guarantee it is more than 20.

How can anyone in GOD's name get fouled 20 X



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
Handy things to have around if you were of a mind to attack Iran, either for incursions across the border or to resist potential Iranian moves against US forces in Afghanistan.

I believe ur exactly correct.
i think this is mobilizing Heavy Armor for
an Iranian invasion as you don't need
this type heavy armor for the Taliban.
This has a higher calling and these
tanks will be located right next to
the Iranian border.

Now couple this news with
the 20 new jets the US is giving Israel
and the $600B Arms Deal to Saudi
Arabia and the expedition process
of the arms treaty with Russia
and you have a total logistical
battle pre-plan. And the time table
is less than 90 days. That is the
amount of time that the US has asked
Israel to stop construction in the
settlements.

Iran .... here we come
whether us Americans want it
or not. We don't have a choice.

edit on 11/19/2010 by boondock-saint because: clarifying



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
If we were serious about winning a swift war in Afghanistan we would have gone balls deep 9 years ago and we wouldn't be discussing this now. We've just been farting around over there waiting for the next big engagement and sadly our troops have paid the price. What's next? Iran? Yemen? I'm smelling a foothold in Yemen before Iran. I don't know why, but the smell keeps surfacing.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

You're spot on! But a withdrawal doesn't mean the ISAF/US troops are going to create a complete vacuum out there. As Obama has himself indicated, there would be at least two divisions (Approx 20,000 troops) permanently stationed in Kabul and surrounding areas. After all we don't want the situation to get back to square one when Taliban ruled the roost in Afghanistan!

So, if Pakistan's ISI / Army think they'll have a cakewalk and install a pliable Taliban regime friendly to it in Afghanistan, they're mistaken. Their so called bizarre doctrine of 'Strategic Depth' is a pipe dream.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
What's next? Iran? Yemen? I'm smelling a foothold in Yemen before Iran. I don't know why, but the smell keeps surfacing.

well from what I read, we already have
drones flying over Yemen. Why invade
with this hardware when your drones
seem to be working? I'm still calling Iran.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by jibeho
What's next? Iran? Yemen? I'm smelling a foothold in Yemen before Iran. I don't know why, but the smell keeps surfacing.

well from what I read, we already have
drones flying over Yemen. Why invade
with this hardware when your drones
seem to be working? I'm still calling Iran.


I agree that the tanks will certainly be used for Iran when the time comes. But, I foresee US boots on the ground stationed in forward ops bases in Yemen.

I read this U.S. Pursues Wider Role in Yemen the other day. Probably, explains the smell I'm getting.

Think of the strategic advantage of its location as it relates to the critical shipping lanes of the straights. It is estimated that 3.7 million barrels of oil pass through there every day. It's the gateway to the Suez.

Only time will tell I suppose.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Yemen? I'm smelling a foothold in Yemen before Iran. I don't know why, but the smell keeps surfacing.


Gotta secure the southern end of the Suez canal route, hence all the media concern with Yemen, Somalia and Sudan but that's the US strategy, a tail with a different priority is waging the dog, it would appear.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I certainly wouldn’t want to come up against one on foot, but with the threat of EFPs and other IEDs I wouldn’t necessarily want to be inside the tank either. I’m not sure of whether they will be particularly useful, perhaps they are there more for the perceived threat of the possibility of having to fight one.

That and to help intimidate Iran, FLEX THOSE MUSCLES AMERICA!! HUUURGGHHH!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Oozyism, dude... chill out. I take information in, sure I do, but that doesnt mean I take it at face value. I dont believe for one moment that the military machine will roll out of Afghanistan in anything like the short order described by the leaders of the US or UK. But what I do believe is that until the date set for departure arrives, we cannot KNOW for sure, what the hell is happening either way. I can however, comment, as I have , on how damned strange the timming of this tank deployment is.
You might think this weird, but I do not like to make sensationalist statements about what I think is going to happen. What I do like to do, is make a comment on a subject that cannot be shot to living crap due to me overstepping the limits of my understanding. Now , I am not a combat operations specialist, so I cannot comment as far as to say something like " This tank deployment serves no purpose other than as a bolster , should Iran become an acceptable target." because I have no information which would indicate that scenario to me, as being the most likely, and even if thats what I thought about it, I have no position of specific knowledge from which to assume ANYTHING.
However, as I said, I can make a comment which DOES fall within the limit of my understanding, which is why I worded my post the way I did, and is why I will only comment in more detail, should more detail come to light. Sensationalism and over reaction leave one open to criticism by right wingers, and frankly the fewer oppertunities those nationalist pigs get to comment on my words, the better in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX



M1 Abrams tanks during annual training
Pic: usmilitary.com


The deployment of the M1 Abrams tanks seems to have come about due to what looks like a stalemate in the ongoing war against the Taliban (Haqqani). These tanks which are being deployed in the 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 punch that an M1 Abrams packs:

Primary Armament

M68A1 rifled gun: fires a variety of high explosive anti-tank, high explosive, white phosphorus and an anti-personnel (multiple flechette) rounds.

M256 smooth bore main gun: The M256A1 fires a variety of rounds including APFSDS, HEAT, M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridges and XM1111 Mid-Range-Munition Kinetic Energy Penetrators.

Secondary Armament

(12.7 mm) M2HB machine gun.
M2HB or a Mk 19 grenade launcher.
7.62 mm M240 machine gun.
A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount. (A second coaxial 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun can be mounted directly above the main gun in a remote weapons platform as part of the TUSK upgrade kit).

Now that's some lethal firepower! But whether it's going to tilt the balance or not is the moot question. Those brigands called the Taliban are a wily band of fighters! But let's wait and see what happens.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


It sure is, don't forget that the Abrams also comes with fletched shells for engaging infantry at close quarters. It's kinda like a king-sized shotgun round!



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join