US tank destroyed in east Afghanistan

US tank destroyed in east Afghanistan

presstv.com

An armed attack in Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan has reportedly destroyed a US tank and injured three American soldiers.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The resistance is increasing, the former prime minister has recently joined the fight.

The former Prime Minister has connections all over East and North Afghanistan.

This is why increasing attacks are held in the East.

Hekmateyar is a very famous individual, I never knew he joined the fight. Last I checked, he was still calling for peace, and was staying neutral.

This is a big news:

A person who introduced himself as spokesman for Gulbuddin Hekmatyar group on Tuesday claimed responsibility for Sunday's attack in Kunar province.

presstv.com...

How will the US react to this.

Hekmatyar has many non-Pashtoon followers, who will increase the influence of the resistence, for example in Paktika, many supporters.

Hezbe-Islami was the most powerful resistance group against USSR, during the Taliban time it seperated in to two factions, one under Haqani, and one under Hekmatyar.

Hekmatyar stayed neutral when Taliban took over Afghanistan, while Haqani joined the Taliban.

Now it seems Hezbe-Islami has united against, fighting the same enemy.

Let's see what the next couple of days bring us.

I suspect that the resistance is gaining momentum, that is why the occupying forces tried to orchestrate fake negotiations, with the help of M16.

Thoughts?

oz

presstv.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by oozyism


I was wondering whether the tank was one of the M1 MBTs that the yanks have recently deployed, as you say interesting that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has gone active in the resistance, I've sorta followed his career over the last thirty some years since the soviet occupation, I wonder if he saved any of the Stingers.

Destroying a tank is no mean feat, especially with today's Armour.. One of the UKs Challenger 2 tanks was reportedly hit by 70 RPGs and survived.. so to destroy rather than damage a modern battle tank is quite an achievement and perhaps denotes a shift in the weaponry the Taliban has.

I have wondered if the deployment of US tanks was to see if the Taliban had the capability of damaging them.

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by oozyism

 

I was wondering whether the tank was one of the M1 MBTs that the yanks have recently deployed, as you say interesting that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has gone active in the resistance, I've sorta followed his career over the last thirty some years since the soviet occupation, I wonder if he saved any of the Stingers.

If he has, then I suspect he is waiting for the right time to use them.

If there is limited number of stingers left, he probably doesn't want to jeopardize them and get them destroyed by attacking at the wrong time of the resistance.

One more thing to remember, he has very good relations with Iran, infact he was in Iran when US invaded Afghanistan, then Iran told him to leave before US uses his presence in the country as justification for attacks.

He left Afghanistan and went to the border where he has a lot of loyals.

The above being said, do you think the US claims that Iran gave insurgents stinger batteries? Do you think those batteries were given to Hekmatyar? Because obviously Hekmatyar and Iran are good friends.

The 16 US tanks that are being deployed to Afghanistan have a support role. As far as i know they are going to be used as support from a distance. Like the French have been doing with theirs.
It is going to be very difficult for the Afghans to engage it unless they have the proper RPGs.

Lately the Afghans have been seen using stolen French and US guided TOW launchers. With the right ammunition this could be a very big problem for the Tanks and other hardened installations we have.

reply to post by Thepreye


I've read Stingers are no good after a few years due to the batteries failing in the warhead-or something like that.
I'm sure they have access to MANPAD's form Iran/Pakistan anyways...

reply to post by thoughtsfull


I remember seeing something when they were touting the whole 'Iran is suppling the Taliban' thingy. They claimed the taliban was using shaped charges in IED's...they even showed one of the copper disks upposedly from Iran.

Tough to kill a tank with an RPG, but a shaped charge would do the trick, methinks...

The better question is what are tanks doing in the East? No blitzkreig going on that I'm aware of...

reply to post by quietone77


Tanks are used for a variety of support roles, Overwatch of key roads or valleys and general fire support are a few. An all out blitz is generally only used when trying to capture a lot in a short time. Cold war tactics with most tanks has gone by the wayside with the changes in battlefield strategies in recent years.

Originally posted by quietone77
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

I remember seeing something when they were touting the whole 'Iran is suppling the Taliban' thingy. They claimed the taliban was using shaped charges in IED's...they even showed one of the copper disks upposedly from Iran.

Tough to kill a tank with an RPG, but a shaped charge would do the trick, methinks...

The better question is what are tanks doing in the East? No blitzkreig going on that I'm aware of...

edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: edit to add

The east is the stronghold of Hekmatyar Hezb-e-Islami. The South is Taliban and Haqani Hezb-e-Islami.

Hekmatyar has a powerful militia who has very good connections with Iran and Pakistan.

It can easily pull some strings and bring in equipment.

Hekmatyar have been neutral for a long time. In fact it was his son that started the peace Jirga, the official one, in the emirates where Afghan elders and powerful figures met up.

The US had its own conditions, duuuh, it has spent too much money to leave Afghanistan (which is the only condition set by the Taliban regarding peace, the withdrawal of occupying forces).

I don't believe they destroyed a tank. The key question here is what this guy is classifying as a tank.

When I was in the military I used self propelled artillery pieces. At times when explaining that vehicle to people outside of the military, I would just break down and said I worked with a tank.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
Destroying a tank is no mean feat, especially with today's Armour.. One of the UKs Challenger 2 tanks was reportedly hit by 70 RPGs and survived.. so to destroy rather than damage a modern battle tank is quite an achievement and perhaps denotes a shift in the weaponry the Taliban has.

I have wondered if the deployment of US tanks was to see if the Taliban had the capability of damaging them.

edit on 30/11/10 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)

Just hold your horses folks.

The media report is, imo, heavily exaggerated. There is not mention of what tank it is, no pictures, just garbled noise from the propaganda machinery.

They have more than likely taken the story of an APC (not an MBT tank) being taken out by an EFP (Explosive Formed Projective) and put the spin machine into over-drive.

It is NOT an MBT destroyed by my reckoning!

reply to post by WatchRider


Tho I do agree, hence bringing up the reported Challenger 2 incident in Basra, even if some do dispute the number of RPGs used in that incident, it does still show that it takes an immense amount of force to take out a modern MBT.

While I agree the type of vehicle and level of damage has not been qualified we are left guessing and it could still be an MBT.

If it is an MBT it posses an interesting question, Do the Taliban possess the type of weaponry that could "destroy" an MBT rather than simply cause one damage.. and if they have such weapons where have they got them from? are they stolen from the coalition? or have they been acquired from another source!

Going by the current situation I lean towards the feeling that the deployment of MBTs was to draw out such weapons, either to indicate x weapons have been stolen or have been acquired from another source.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by WatchRider

 

Tho I do agree, hence bringing up the reported Challenger 2 incident in Basra, even if some do dispute the number of RPGs used in that incident, it does still show that it takes an immense amount of force to take out a modern MBT.

edit on 30/11/10 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)

Not really. RPG-7Vs used by Iraqi insurgents are the most basic of modern RPGs; basically they're just using rockets made in the region (Iraqi military was notorious for horrible reconstruction of Soviet/Russian equipment). Most are using standard HEAT warheads, and aren't even guided.

Some rebels in the ME have acquired ATGMs like Russian Kornets or MILANs (Hezballah). Newer anti-tank guided missiles have specific features to take out MBTs. Specific target points matter too, ie aim for the tracks, fuel tanks (more prominent with external tanks on Russian MBTs), sensors on the turret, etc.

M1 Abrams also has a significant thermal output due to its jet engine that it's fitted with. To my knowledge, US is just experimenting with active denial systems so I doubt normal Abrams units are equipped with ADS (unlike Russians with ARENA, Israelis with TROPHY, etc). Only thing that the Abrams really has that's special in terms of defense is its ceramic armor, but since the Russians have their own version, I'm sure that Russian-made weapons probably have some ability to beat it.

reply to post by ghostsoldier78


Interesting. I had thought tanks were widely thought of as innefective in counterinsurgency doctrine. Perhaps like the poster below suggests it was an arty piece or a bradley...

reply to post by oozyism


Good info! You're obviously more well read on the situation than I. My feeling is the new deployment of tanks in the MSM will be in pakistani territory sooner or alter...just a hunch.

My understanding is that the only thing that we have that can take out an M-1 is another M-1.

Until I see a more reputable source, with pics, I call Bovine Scat.

If anything was actually hit, it was probably a Stryker.

reply to post by quietone77


You''re right tanks and heavy armor is not used at all like in the 80s and early 90s. But big guns are still used just not on the same scale and not necesarily in the same traditional roles. As long as theres war there will always be the Armored Cav.