It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US tanks go in to Afghanistan

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:32 AM

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

Saw news of the Soviet occupation? No, I was born a year after they withdrew. I, however, have seen countless videos and reports and testimonies by all factions involved (which the news wouldn't report on anyways). I think the word you're looking for is Mi-24 Hind (the NATO name anyways, Russians called it the Crocodile).

I'll say it again, there was no air war. Air war implies that there is air combat; bombing and deploying attack choppers is air support. How is it an air war when the only things flying were Soviet?

And anyone who advocates genocide clearly shows no soul or intelligence, so yes I still think that you are an idiot. You may not like my opinion, but I sure the hell don't like you saying that these innocent people should all be murdered and nuked. Bloody ignorant and inexperienced is what I think of you, if you spend one day there you would drop your attitude forever.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Reaper2137

You do realize that all Afghanis don't live in Afghanistan right? No probably not.

And you think that they are still using the weapons that they were given almost 30 years ago? That must have been one hell of a cache to fight the Russians and then fight NATO for 10 years as well.

Here mate, I know you won't read these but at least I can say I tried to open your eyes.

Oh and here's that map.

edit on 21-11-2010 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:18 AM

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.

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.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM

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.


Well thats the politicians not the military generals stating that. Glad to see you resort to name calling, that pretty much shows how ineffective your argument is. If I was commanding the forces in Afghan theater, I concentrate on fighting the enemy and stop trying to protect the Afghan people from Taliban intimidation and suicide bombings cause we just don't have the manpower and it puts us on the defensive.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:38 AM

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.

You fail to fully understand your fictional enemy.

Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks were not a desperate act, but "divine justice" willed and directed by the hand of God (Allah).

A punch in the nose of the great military powers allied with the evil Zionists and their murderous intentions and actions against the Muslims of God's (Allah's) most holy lands.

In reality, it was bait, a provocation which has surpassed their most optimistic expectations. They have drawn the US and western allies into the quagmire, exactly where they wanted them all along.

Every Muslim that has been killed has not died in vein. The U.S. led military campaigns into Muslim nations has done more for their cause than they had hoped for. In time, even you will understand this.

Just a matter of time now, until they acquire real weapons of mass destruction, and bring a new definition for "divine justice" to the entire world, that will make 9/11 seem like child's play.

Secure your airplanes and airports, your borders, fight your wars... But know that your true enemies are preparing for your complete destruction.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:02 PM
When this comes to pass, (it will) who will the US and its allies retaliate against?

Where will they chase the fictional Al Qaeda Boogiemans this time?

Will they intensify their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe a new campaign with surgical strikes into the tribal regions of Pakistan?

What nation among nations will be held responsible?

Pure evil genius is at work here, and there may ultimately be no way to defeat that.

If it wasn't so evil, one could almost admire the collaborative pure genius involved here.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:50 PM
I know the dirty scum pretty well spending two years their.. so yeah I would kill them all.. and as you would say I have no soul.. I'm not stupid I just don't have a problem pulling the trigger.. on people not good enough to breath the Air most others do.. but than again as I've said before.. if the NWO comes knocking and the time comes.. I'll be hunting all of you as well.. lol.. I'll respond again once I've read those sites that super mod gave.. cheers

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:01 PM

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...

Might be because the Canadians are leaving and taking them with them?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by signal2noise

Hey, you must be pretty smart to come to that conclusion

The C2s are a whole different story. They are mainly used in Operation Athena to help support Canadian operations around Kabul. In other words, they just patrolled the Canadian bases and sometimes Kabul city.

Oh, and you do know that there are two operations going on in Afghanistan, right? The main one that TV covers is the NATO ISAF mission that Canada has periodically lead. The second one is the US-led mission that involves most of the bloody jobs, this is where the M1s are being deployed. This means M1s will probably be deployed all over Afghanistan, the number one country rated for hostile terrain (says Canadian military officers).

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.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:54 PM

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.

I see a definite role for a small number of M-1's in the Stan in a support role. They are incredible in overwatch, being able to cover gridsquares of terrain 24/7 if placed in a suitable spot. Not only can they look, but they can shoot at anything they see as well.

They are mobile in ways wheeled vehicles are not. Now Afghanistan is tough tank country, but there are places in the S where a tank would have no issues.

There are few things the enemy could use against them that could kill them.

All the light guys get their panties in a knot saying "Too many problems, too big, too immobile, too much logistics, wah wah wah" Its all just a challenge to be overcome in order to put another arrow into the quiver of the maneuver commanders in these sectors.

Will 14 tanks win the war? No. Will they shift the tactical dynamic when they are employed? probably.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by signal2noise

Will 14 tanks win the war? No. Will they shift the tactical dynamic when they are employed? probably.

Again, there is no way to win in Afghanistan, never was. Hillary Clinton was on the news tonight outlining the Obama administration's plan to accelerate the process of turning over "security" to the Afghans... They've seen the writing on the wall and know what is coming.

Ever been to Yermo California?

If you like looking at tanks and military hardware go check it out right now... You'll see THOUSANDS being staged and prepped for something maybe in the "pacific" region?

The entire water system in Barstow nearby this "activity" was contaminated with a very toxic rocket fuel chemical.. Google it.... whats up with that?

Afghan operations are going to briefly intensify in a final desperate effort to "contain" the Taliban and "insurgent" forces.. and that too will likely fail. But I suppose it's better than dropping everything and leaving right away.

edit on 21-11-2010 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:31 PM
The only reason to send tanks to Afghanistan is that they are bullet and RPG magnets.

This take the pressure off the troops as targets.

Insurgents just can not resist firing at tanks.

This makes it easy to take out the insurgents as you can roll over them.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:38 PM

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.”

Doesn't surprise me one bit when somebody which I will not name because its too embarrassing and would be defined as bullying...thinks that tanks are against other tanks. Tanks can be used for anti-personnel as well.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by deltaboy


Yeah, I guess my government would say something like that

EDIT: but keep in mind that we do not have our C2s deployed for anti-armor missions, they are used for patrol around populated areas (which actually have roads). When I'm talking about the Taliban, I mean these guys are way out in the mountains where tanks cannot usually go (sometimes due to fuel range).
edit on 23-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:48 AM
we are there for the three trillion in mineral beg ,borrow or steal .the tanks will probably be used at checkpoints.its kinda hard to snipe or mortar an abrams with any real success.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 03:32 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

The tanks will most likely be deployed and kept in and around the city outskirts and in and around large and medium sized towns as a form of mobile castling and defensive strong points which in turn would free up more men for maneuvers in the highlands. Tanks are death traps up small winding mountain roads. As Schrodinger has pointed out they are worthless being deployed in that manner the Soviets took a beating attempting that.

I always get a kick out of some peoples assumptions.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:53 AM
if you're gonna fight a war, you should fight to win it, right?? throw as much power as is needed...
so, well, why weren't there tanks there to begin with??

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:53 AM

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?

Soviet tanks sent to Afghanistan were crap. They kept all of their best tanks in Eastern Europe. The T-55s, T-62s lacked any decent thermal or nightvision equipment, fire control systems, or armor.

The Abrams on the other hand is verified killing machine, able to reach out to targets at 2.5 miles away, and regardless of illumination.

It will be unlikely that they bring many kinetic energy rounds or "sabot rounds" that use DU. Instead they'll be packing mostly high explosive and cannister rounds. We may end up seeing new thermobaric or WP rounds as well.

Unlike most of the people on these forums, I have been all over Afghanistan and my first MOS was an Abrams crewman. Much of Afghanistan isn't very different from Fort Irwin, the National Training Center or the Mojave where its located. The Abrams was designed for this kind of open field warfare, not the urban combat of Iraq. I fully expect the Abrams to perform better in Afghanistan than it did in Iraq.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:33 AM
Completely stupid gesture and a horrid waste of resources.

Might as well piss into the wind.

All that will come of this is more destruction of regular Afghan citizen's property and meaningless wastes of life. They will terrorize the people, and do absolutely nothing to stop the "taliban". It's really about the dumbest strategy possible. Seriously, is there anything in Afghanistan that requires a tank? Nope.

Just one big stupid theatrical charade.

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in