In an interview about a week ago with the former commander of RCT-7 in Afghanistan, we got another look at how the Marines plan to use the multi-ton behemoths and how successful they’ve been in the past. According to Col. Randy Newman, the tanks help in blowing up hardened positions.
From a firepower standpoint, we used Danish tanks up in Nawa, or up in Nawzad when we first went up there back in — I think it would have been December of ’09; I think December 14th, if I remember right — that we went into Nawzad and we used Danish tanks to help us reduce some hard bunkers that the Taliban and that the enemy had established up there.
But as security takes hold in the south, Newman admits the bunker-busting capabilities of the Abrams tanks will be less in demand.
I think there’s vast areas of desert in southern Helmand Province that the enemy have rat lines in and that the Afghans utilize for lines of communication. Those areas need to be secured, and they also need to have the enemy’s freedom of movement limited on them. I think the tanks would be great assets to use in that area.
So let me get this straight — you want tanks for a mission that’s going away, then you come up with a new mission of route security after you’ve spent the time and money getting 14 of the 70 ton tanks thousands of miles across Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to call into question the combat tactics of the leathernecks fighting in Helmand, but aren’t there several other options available to reducing a Taliban bunker than an Abrams?
I have the sneaking suspicion that this tank deployment may have the makings of a PR stunt. There’s been some talk about whether the Marine Corps really needs its tank battalions — being as how it says its a lightweight, expeditionary force and all. Could this latest deployment to Afghanistan be a way of demonstrating some kind of relevance?
Seems overkill to me to be perching a $4.3 million tank to kill IED emplacers along the ring road.
– Christian
{ 130 comments… read them below or add one }
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Canadian+tanks+A…
I'm getting pretty freaking sick of people screaming "PR stunt" or "the Corps doesn't need that" at the Marines during budget cuts or restraints. The Canadians and Danes used them to good effect. Maybe the USMC is good at taking advice from lessons learned. If you don't recall they're fighting in open terrain in South Afghanistan not the valleys and draws of the northeast like the US Army.
You want an idea about making the USMC "relevant again?" Take every unit in the USAF and US Army that begins with "expeditionary" and remove that title. Get rid of said unit and give the requisite funding that sustained that unit to the USMC. Since that is, after all, their cornerstone mission.
So, if we make the USMC the expeditionary warfare branch… can we transfer all the Marine Corps Abrams to the Army? Armor doesn't mesh all that well with the concept of expeditionary warfare… neither does artillery really, air support and naval gunfire support should be enough to help the grunts establish a beachhead or drop zone long enough for the muscle to arrive.
Really to me it sounds like you're saying that you want to gut the ability of the US Army and the USAF to fight wars on foreign soil, as that IS what expeditionary warfare basically boils down to… Besides that, the USMC is supposed to be deployable anywhere in the world within 48 hours. The USAF and US Army's expeditionary units are globally deployable within 18-24 hours. Mind you, thats what it says on paper, your mileage may vary.
IMO, the Marines should drop the expeditionary concept entirely. Their focus should return to shipbaord security, brown-water and littoral engagements. The entire concept of Riverine warfare just screams "US MARINE CORPS" to me, why they abandoned it and gave that mission to the Navy, I will never know.
I don't think we need four divisions of FAST and littoral power.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Marines should go back to their original mission, shipboard security (sailors that engage in hand to hand combat) naval police and shallow water, seashore operations. Once the Marines get beyond the reach of naval guns, they are out of their element. They also do a good job as embassy guards for the State Dept. Their pretty uniforms fit right in with that mission.
Yeah, if they want to keep the embassy/presidential guard thing, let them. Someone has to do it, its cheaper using an existing organization than creating a new one.
"neither does artillery really, air support and naval gunfire support should be enough to help the grunts establish a beachhead or drop zone long enough for the muscle to arrive"
You willing to bet thousands of lives on that?
The Marine Corps is deployable in 48 hours as a Marine Air Ground Task Force, the only in the services mind you. That means bringing to bear ARMOR, INFANTRY,PLANES, and ARTILLERY. You guys should study up in military history. Yes the other services are deployable withing 18-24 hours, Army Airborne is an infantry only basis, their great at what they do and thats securing key strategical points not needing to use heavy weaponry for (ie. runways and what not). I'd love to hear one person give me a logical reason why the Marines aren't needed, that i would like to listen to.
What I'm saying is that it is not a critical function of the USAF and US Army to be anywhere fast. There is no requisite need to fund an ability when we already have a branch that has done it for years. Expeditionary is not just being fast…it is bringing all available assets with you and not relying on prebuilt urban structures, logistics hubs, and airfields. Look at Camp Leatherneck and the surrounding camps and ask how fast they were built to sustain the current MEB. They didn't move into those huts and buildings, they built it from the ground up. The USAF and US Army can't do that especially that fast.
Also, the shipboard security is a ridiculous argument. The Navy has been able to "secure" itself for decades now without our help. The vast majority combat power of the USMC is supposed to be able to deploy within 48 hours. The entire 1st MarDiv or 3rd Marine Airwing. Not just some hand selected units.
Your telling me the entire 1st ID or a given USAF airwing can deploy in 24 hours?
Right.
18-24 Global deployment, varies on destination. Hmm. Sounds like a loophole. The Army is not a “conquering force” and this is why. They have too much power. They have massive tanks, bloody fine weapons, heavy hitting artillery, smashing infantry. But they dont have the ablitiy to move it from state to state without a 50 mile back up. The Marines, on the other hand, get on 6 cents of every mil defense dollar, and still pack a harder punch. They are quick, fast, lethal, and its because they sit on Naval Decks, waiting. Waiting for their call sign to go active, and are always ready to deploy. The Army isnt. It can hold a line, and if it is given a city no power on earth can take it away, given time. When you dont have time, and you need someone dead now, who you going to call, the people who have difficulty finding their way out of a “foxhole” without their gps, or someone who will land, kill, and evac, in an hour after they are ordered to?
This is all well and good each person one upping each other in the name of their service branch. The Marines can do this in 48hrs, the Airborne can be world wide in 24hrs, I can name that tune in one note. The problem with claims on paper of mobility of the USMC and other units of the services is that no Army, Marine, Air Force, or Naval unit has ever been able to match those claims in reality. It has never happened. "Making the USMC relevant again" is offset by their performance. In Iraq and Afghanistan the USMC has shown without a doubt that it can only move and sustain as well as the Army Reserve and Army National Guard units that do most of the USMCs heavy lifting. Thats just the reality. Currently most USMC units that move from Camp Pendleton to 29 Palms for any ftx have to use Army Reserve transportation units because they do not have enough assets. Just facts.
Also I am a tank advocate because I was infantry. I've seen the NATO Leopards in Afghanistan. Nothing, not even jets, inspires such fear in your enemy as Tanks. The Marines would be smart to move a Abrams forward to even small firefights on a occasional basis, just to roar up, fire a few 120 HE round. Make sure you let a few of them get away to spread the story. Even 12th century Islamist respect tanks.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare they add. It's a great tank but it guzzles fuel like mad. And there's the support personnel, and the protection for the support personnel. And the people that supply them all. All in all you add a few hundred people to get 14 tanks over there. That's a lot of headache for a PR stunt.
Someone name an option cheaper than a HEAT round to destroy bunkers, or a vehicle that can stay on station for DAYS. Despite the stereotype gas-guzzling machines they are, per hour of stand-by time, a Tank is cheaper than any drone or plane in existance. Consider the fact that a tank can watch an area for hours before needing to start the engine for ONE hour to charge the batteries. Without moving, an M1 will idle for more than 16 hours without re-fueling. Unless someone wants to question the math, that sounds like more overwatch time than a drone could ever dream of and I haven't even gotten to the 'boots on the ground' point.
Is it a PR stunt, meh. But its long over due to place Armor Units in the south to free up Light Units for the north.
Zumbros webpage mentioned this for RVN…but I imagine the speed advantage of the Abrams turbine is mooted in Afghanistan. The 4k reach out and touch people day or night sounds useful…maybe a combined arms with an Abrams and a Humvee or two, or troops mounted desant would provide manpower for checkpoints and meaningful firepower if the Taliban come out.
Don't we have the Stryker Mobile Gun System that can do the same job, but with a lighter chassis?
On paper, even a Bradley IFV would be sufficient. Stryker MGS uses a derivative of the 105 that was supposed to go to the M8, and it probably has sufficient protection (14.5mm, RPG slat armor) to do okay against direct attack, but if someone does mortar prep work and M-kills the stryker…
How bout a 105mm recoiless rifle mounted on the back of a humvee, or a TOW mounted on the back of a humvee?
Recoiless rifles lack the range of a tank main gun. Recoiless comes at the cost of muzzle velocity and range.
TOW optics aren't as good as tank optics. TOW round takes >10 seconds to arrive at maximum range. (I had to go look, but TOW missiles are actually subsonic?)
The other problem is that a Humvee can be immobilized with long range mortar fire, which wouldn't end well if combined with an attack by Taliban footsoldiers.
If you've been in Helmand you'll notice that its like trench warfare, we're here, they're there and theres 500m of open ground between us. Even if you use them just for route security like we did in Iraq, its better then building a fixed position that must be manned by at least a squad that doesn't have the range, optics, protection, maneuverability or firepower. If anything, a tank is a show of power in the region. I just hope it doesn't present a similarity between us and the Russian occupation to the populace.
There is that concern, but to an Afghan if you fly overhead with fighter jets, UAVs, helicopters, transports, bombers, and are on the ground with MRAPs, foot soldiers, Humvees and lighter tracked vehicles like the BvS 206; then you're either already an occupier or you're not. The addition of sixty ton tracks is like icing on the cake if you're in the "they are occupiers" camp, but to those who haven't already been swayed by 90,000 foreigners its just more units, at least until you cause a road accident and/or kill innocent Afghans.
If the tanks mean one less airstrike into a house that kills five kids, or a direct-fire engagement with machineguns instead of a Hellfire missile that saves lives, then I'd say the tanks have paid for themselves. If a 70 ton tank means the Taliban can only lay one big IED instead of fifteen little ones, then they've paid for themselves.
I have no illusions that armor will win the war, though. Winning the war depends on more than what toys you bring to Afghanistan…
Tanks are good. Period. Lots of armor and a BFG is always a plus when people are shooting at you.
5+. It's not rocket science, what the Corps is doing here…..
The use of tanks is a good idea in area of south Afghanistan. It's always nice to have something with a big gun that can reach out and touch somebody far away. Tanks are really good to have in a gunfight.
Why not armor up Strykers for route security??? & use tanks as Last Resort Defense???
Or have some Reapers air strike Taliban positions pre convoy runs???
I think the author of this article is just another jealous Army type. after all the Navy has
-the best infantry soldiers-the US Marines
-the only real nuclear deterrent-ballistic missile submarines
-the best special forces-the Seals
-the best warships in the world
-the highest level of technology by far of any service
-the best fighter jocks in its naval air force/marines
-the only combined-arms capability-US Marines/US Navy
-the only ability to operate and to strike our enemies anywhere in the world
-the only real/proven BMD capability
-and the ability to take out enemy satellites
AND most importantly, the best FOOTBALL team (of the military teams)
let's the rants begin ;-D
I think Rick is just another jealous Navy/Marine type. after all, the US Army/Air Force has
-the best infantry soldiers-US Army Rangers (you go to Ranger school and tell me that the Marines have it rough)
-the only real nuclear deterrent- ICBM's and intercontinental nuclear bombers (2/3 of the triad, )
-the best special forces- USAF Pararescue (even the SEALs need backup)
-the best aircraft in the world (this speaks for itself)
-the highest level of technology by far of any service belongs to the US Air Force (not only is it the best educated of the three departments, but the Air Force stresses technology to warfighting as one of the purposes to its existence, and lets be honest, more cutting edge advances have come from the Air Force than the Navy since the cold war, the Air Force pushes science to its limits, the Navy utilizes tried and true technologies)
-the best fighter jocks in the Air Force (the US Air Force has a better record overall than the USMC-Navy team, I will give the Navy the fact that it can land on a moving platform, but landings don't count for anything in combat)
-the only combined arms capability-US Air Force/US Army (AirLand Battle and now also with the US Navy with AirSea Battle)
-the only ability to operate and to strike our enemies anywhere in the world (I'd like to see the Navy/Marine Corps team transport the Marine Corps to Inner Mongolia without the Air Force)
-the only real/proven BMD capability (check again, the US ARMY has responsibility for this area of defense, plus the Air Force has the airborne laser program which has been successfully tested, plus the PAVE PAWS system used to track them…)
-jand the ability to take out enemy satellites (US Air Force did it first w/ F-15s)
AND most importantly, the best FOOTBALL team (Air Force Academy has the best record of the three service academies, beat both Army AND Navy this year, deal with it)
Anyone can play that game anyway they please, in the end the branches need eachother to pull their fair share of the weight, otherwise we have a failure of a military.
-Recon Marines.. Just saying.
-Marines only have one “spec ops” unit (if you want to call it that) because we get the job done right the FIRST time.
-We have our own planes thank you very much, and i would like to see the Army minus all you tech gear.
-Ground pounding with only 6% of the DoD budget. How much does Army/Navy/Airforce have again?
-Would love to see what would happen if the Army had to create an Embassy Defense Unit.
-Finds it ironic that the Army thinks its better than the Marines.. didnt you learn from 1947-49?
-also on the whole transport into Inner Mongolia with out the AirForce.. How would you get it done? We have our own transport planes, ships, and trucks. If we cant fly by Navy or Marine, we will walk, and still get the job done. The Army would quit because it didnt get its way :(
The services are all constrained by previous interservice agreements. For instance, the Navy would probably cry foul if the Army attempted to own its own strategic sealift (for good reason, duplication of capability=inefficient and wasteful).
The issue with saying that "Marines are cheaper" is confounded by the fact that the Marines are a smaller service and don't have the large manpower reserves required to support the logistical tail at an above-corps level. The Army, Navy and Air Force have large tails, for the Army it's corps, theater and etc logistics systems. For the Navy, it's keeping a large fleet of support vessels at sea, which is probably almost as large as the surface warfare fleet. The Air Force, while represented at air shows by fighter jets probably has more pilots flying C-5s, C-17s, C-130s, etc.
Also, the other three branches are responsible for transporting the Marines around, supplying the marines by land and air; with Navy/Airforce levelling the country the Marines (and Army) will be sent into.
(And I've forgotten the Fleet Air Arm. Whoops, Navy aviation.)
To be honest, embassy defense should probably be a responsibility of the state department, which already has armed units in the form of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
I will avoid the ego-rubbing that comes with special operations units. It's just a bad place to be.
Greg you forgot a few on this list.
the USMC also has…..
The highest court martial %
The highest article 15 %
The highest non-combat medical discharge rate
The highest suicide rate(very unfortunate, not funny at all)
The highest AWOL %
The highest drug/alcohol discipline/discharge %
The highest failure of initial training rate(this is a point of honor with the USMC)
Like you said Greg "just saying"
Rob, feel free to insert your source at any time.
chaos0xomega –the best infantry soldiers-US Army Rangers (you go to Ranger school and tell me that the Marines have it rough)
Chaos- Rangers are excellent soldiers, but they are a special sect within the infantry profession. On a grand scale, Marines have proven themselves as an elite fighting force. The Army does not.
Quit thinking of your comebacks and understand Marines bring different attributes to the Joint arena.
Some of your claims should be verified with your urinalysis specimen. You are smoking way too much crack. USA/USAF the only combined arms capability? Where do you get this from?
Since when do we strike into Mongolia? What about the Arc of Instability? Study strategic and operational aspects of war in order to understand the big picture.
By the way, didn't Navy beat Army again this year?
Give it up, Chaos. I would quit while you're this much behind.
Jim – "On a grand scale, Marines have proven themselves as an elite fighting force. The Army does not".
Guadalcanal – USMC fight heroicly, cannot dislodge Japs, 5 Army Inf Regiments land and destroy the Japs and complete the mission.
WW2 Pacific 19 times more Soldiers fight than Marines, Army makes 7 times more Amphib landings than USMC, the division with the most opposed beach landing? The 7th Infantry US Army! 92 Movies made.
Inchon – USMC fight MacAuthurs plan, will not paticipate. Mac plans ahead with 7th ID and 1st Cav. Truman tells Cmdt to give Mac his requests, still no go. Mac threatens CO PACMARFOR with pistol, 5th and 3rd Marines take port unopposed, advance to Seoul against light resistance from 5 N. Korean Battalions(2900troops)troops. 7th Id and 1st Cav (the right/South flank) destroy 5 Chinese and 3 N. Korean Div.(42,000 troops) to protect Marine advance. Always known as a great "Marine" victory. 14 Movies made.
Rob, it's apparent we read completely different books.
Chosin – Combined TF,90% Army, moves North toward the Yalu River. Marines are East flank. 4th ID overruns 3N.Korean divs, with the renants(2500 troops with no trucks,tanks or artillery) move East to escape. The Marine Div CO is too cautious and they have fallen 40Kms behind the TFs line of advance. The N. Korean remnant force stops Marines cold at Chosin. The US task force reaches the Yalu, China enters war(9 Chinese Volunteer Divisions were in Korea before China entered war officially under N. Korea flags), attacks across the whole front, then exploits right flank left open by USMC and pours 500K troops thru the Marine gap. Cut off and now attacked by Chinese the Marines retreat(or as marines say "attack in another direction") Marines rescued by 4th ID and 11 Armor US Army. 5 Movies made of Marine "Victory".
Again, what reference are you citing? I would love to read this.
Not even cool you bring up the right flank considering that was held by Task Force Faith which was an Army unit (very unfortunately wiped out).
Whose side are you on?
Ke Sahn – Marines fight off seige with support of 24hour Air support(90%) from USAF. Army Moves 39 Artillery Batteries to support Marines. USAF destroys NVA supply chain. Army moves Force of 9th inf/ 11th ACR North, they drive from coast, destroy 8 NVA Regiments and rescue Marines. 5 Movies made of great Marine "Victory".
Grenada – USMC AH-1 and CH-46 units are outstanding in support of SF, Seals, Rangers and 82nd Airborne. Marines disembark their ships after almost fighting is over and land unopposed, the offical Marine history indicates that 17 of the elite Marines fired weapons, resulting in wounds to 5 other elite Marines. 1 Movie made "Heartbreak Ridge", one of my favorites, almost entirely false. If you follow the script Gunny Highway earned the CMH in the Army before He and the Sgt Major joined the Marines. Heartbreak Ridge was a Army Battle in Korea in reality.
Jim I could go on but you get the point. Stop watching Movies.
Khe Sanh? Really? This outpost was manned by Marines at the extreme disagreement from the I Corps Commander. Since Westmoreland was the Supreme Commnader, Marines occupied that post and it was Marines Westmoreland insisted to occupy the position.
Movies? Who needs those when you have books? You can note your so called sources and point out every failure the Corps has produced. We can flip the page and note every Army, Navy, or Air Force fowl up, but what's the point?
To think the Army is the "be-all, end-all" force is complete lunacy. Your possession of Special Forces doesn't make you the elite of the elite. It makes you specialized to deal with a particular type of operation.
I completely understand my role as a Marine. Do you?
I just want to know why the MArines are using tanks but not the Army.
Because armor generals don't want to touch civil affairs or counterinsurgency? Command appointments are severely dominated by infantry and special forces types: forces notorious for not being combined arms. That and Afghanistan is not perceived as tank country so no armor people are around: same deal in RVN early on.
That and there may be political brouhaha from sending in tanks…which has kept people from thinking about it until now.
Tanks are evil dont ya know. So in your face warmongering mechines.
And im pretty sure a abrams cost more than 4.3 mil
I remember laughing when on History they interviewed some guy who said they cost sixty mil a piece. I thought: aircraft do, tanks do not!
The Abrams cost is…seven million I think? Or in thereabouts. Certainly less than ten, but I don't think that cost estimate includes TUSK.
Wiki give a cost of 6,21 million
Not only is it a big publicity stunt but it's also a big mistake. With the ROE we have there, the chances of us actually utilizing anything on the M1A1 outside of the m240 machine gun is remote. Translation: it won't be doing anything our MRAPS and LAVs can't already do, and maybe even less. Using these on hard targets is a nice idea but unlikely to occur and not worth it in the big picture. If Marines need to take out a hard target they can use what they've been using, TOW missiles, Bushmasters, HIMARS, CAS, etc. I would call this gross negligence for the sake of publicity. These tanks will get hit by IEDs and we don't have many of them and they are expensive to maintain. The areas they can operate effectively in have already been significantly pacified and rarely present a "hard target" opportunity. What a waste. Wrong ROE, wrong type of warfare. Publicity stunt and nothing more.
Marine Combat Engineer
Veteran of OEF 10-1 Helmand, Afghanistan May-December 2010
I suspect that the tanks may not get a lot of 120mm either. But half of counterinsurgency is psychological. However, in incidents where the optics of an Abrams may prove useful in intelligence, you can also pull the trigger with a better ability to know what you're hitting than someone with a GPS-guided bomb.
I would probably shudder more at using CAS or indirect tube, even GPS guided because the CEP is still kind of big, especially if GPS fails and the system reverts to INS. TOW missiles are probably too expensive in the absence of tanks (good time to bring back the 106mm?)
I would definitely agree that we are unlikely to go around blasting everything on sight with the 120mm. This isn't Sadr City…
Bob, 1st thanks for your service! I agree with you 100%. Budgets are too tight for this type of stuff. I agree with the Psych value of Armor, but the USMC and all the services are now under a total budget crunch from the Obama Admin. Some on this page are talking about tank costs. The cost of a M1 is nothing compared to the Maintenance costs of a Tank Company.
"Seems overkill to me to be perching a $4.3 million tank to kill IED emplacers along the ring road."
Strange I never heard anyone say that while watching multi-million dollar Apache gunship footage conducting the same mission. Or using even more expensive fixed-wing aircraft in the same capacity, or to bust bunkers. The tanks will at least be able to stay permanently on station, allocated to the grunts, and freeing up those air assets for missions that might be more appropriate. Overall, it increases their operational flexibility just like they said.
You'd think Hellfires would be overkill against a moped or a car, or a 2,000 pound bomb overkill against a small building (or heck, even the 250 pound SDB might be construed as overkill).
That's because the Army was operating that Apache. If the Marines do anything it's automatically a waste or a PR stunt to everyone on this site. It's ridiculous. Go ahead, vote down, but you know it's true.
I was actually thinking of air force UAVs when I said Hellfire missile, but either way, it's very much overkill.
Thanks for the post, very well thought out. I agree with what you're saying and it does seem like PR for the sake the Corps. To me it seems to like its a way for the Marines to argue that they used the tanks in Afghanistan and when budget cuts come around (most likely in the next year) with the new Congress to help support why they need them. The difference in the tanks and planes is that the tanks are an additional capability that has been added whereas the planes are already in country and being used. An additional supply chain, maintenance needs, ordnance needs for the tanks while the planes can take out the targets the Col. highlighted in the interview. It's a duplication of capability at an extreme cost.
The tank was originally designed to explicitly support the infantry before it took on the anti-tank mission. I agree that it can seem that it's duplication of the air mission, but it represents a turn away from the overly air-centric approach preferred by DefSecs since MacNamara.
The advantage of air power is its ability to quickly go from a central node and support any force a considerable distance away. Air power only loiters long enough to drop bombs, so you need tremendous numbers of aircraft on call, plus their logistical tails. Protecting an airbase requires control of the high ground and all terrain that would enable indirect fire to touch your airfields, so one could argue that proper support of the air force is much greater in expense.
The tank is a direct-fire unit and is more accurate at maximum range than the greatest CEP of a GPS-guided bomb.The high CEP means the smallest practicable bomb is in the 250 pound range, which can still be indiscriminate compared to a comparatively low-powered tank gun.
You'd save more money by reducing flight hours by aircraft if tanks can offset their support at much lower cost. That and we're comparing the consumption of parts and fuel of fighter jets and helicopters to that of tanks. Aircraft engines, parts and fuel are greater logistical consumptions than a tank (though again, if only Abrams had diesels…)
A lot of these arguments calling for tanks as a waste are people who believe air power is a cookie-cutter solution. Aviation is effective, but it is costly. To have constant CAP, CAS, etc overhead is a TON more costly than placing a tank or two in support of infantry.
Good thing the Air Force doesn't control MEBs.
Here are some from the G2mil blog
Heavy Tanks are a Heavy Burden
The Marine Corps recently announced that it will deploy a company of 14 M-1A2 Abrams tanks to Afghanistan to provide mobile firepower to destroy Afghan militiamen. This will provide Marines with a new combat capability, but it's not a good idea.
The first problem is that all fuel in Afghanistan is trucked hundreds of miles along dangerous roads from Pakistan. Delivery costs are an estimated $400-$800 a gallon, for a tank that burns three gallons a mile. Costs don't matter to Generals, but supporting these 14 tanks will require at least 1000 more Marines. The crews are small, but the tank maintainers and supply teams number in the hundreds. They'll also need tank transport trucks to haul them long distances, a dozen more fuel trucks, and a couple of huge tank retrievers to recover broke down tanks, or those that tip over or get stuck. All these tank support people need food, water, electricity, and 24-hour protection, so hundreds more Marines are required.
How many more causalities will be suffered by the 1000 Marines deployed to support these tanks, which were deployed to reduce causalities? Keeping logistical supply lines open has already become the primary focus of American military effort, and will worsen when tanks arrive. Another problem is that massive tanks tear up roads and farmer fields, while all that heavy firepower is sure to kill more civilians than insurgents. Moreover, the mighty M-1 was designed to kill tanks, not to fight insurgents, although that can change with simple modifications, like those I described a decade ago.
The Afghan fighters will quickly adjust to these tanks. They will build some monster IEDs and eventually blow a tank off the road, just as Iraqis did several times. They also know that a simple RPG fired into its rear often destroys a mighty tank. The M-1 tank has outstanding armor, but it does have a well-known weak spot. This tank burns explosive jet fuel that is difficult to extinguish, unlike diesel used by most other tanks. A small explosion caused by an RPG or heavy machine gun hit in the engine compartment may rupture a fuel line near the ultra-hot gas turbine engine, so a minor hit can ignite a fuel fire. If the fire is not doused by mobile fire extinguishers within a minute, it quickly grows and devours the tank.
Yes, I know the M-1 has an automatic fire suppression system, but it's not powerful enough to extinguish most engine fires caused by ruptured fuel lines. The crews always escape, yet the fire engulfs and destroys the tank. This has occurred dozens of times in Iraq, and sometimes by accident during peacetime training. These losses are classified secret to hide embarrassments, yet the Afghans will celebrate when they slay a monster tank. And the final reason not to deploy these tanks and 1000 extra Marines to Afghanistan is — the entire effort is pointless.
It's too bad the Marines have nothing lighter and more "expeditionary" as they like to say. A couple NATO allies have sent Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, yet these are almost half the weight of the huge M-1s and have fuel efficient diesel engines. The US Army's Bradley IFV would be much better with its 25mm chain gun. The M-1's 120mm gun has such a huge blast that it cannot fire with infantrymen 100 yards to its front or sides, lest they get a concussion. The Brad is less than half the weight of an M-1, yet still RPG and heavy machine gun proof to the front and sides. Its diesel engine gets six times better gas mileage and doesn't have that flash fire problem. It can also carry four grunts inside. However, Marine Generals would have to swallow their pride and admit they lack needed gear if they borrowed Brads from the Army, like they have with CH-47s helicopters for medium lift and H-60s for Medevacs.
I didn't know that or need to know that.
This post is so filled with false information I don't know where to begin.
"Delivery costs are an estimated $400-$800 a gallon, for a tank that burns three gallons a mile."
Sorry, not even close. The $400 per gallon estimate (this is the whole burdened cost per gallon) specifically refers to a deep raid scenario that requires two fuel points to be established by helicopter to get to and return from the raid. The cost in AFPAK is orders of magnitude less.
"This tank burns explosive jet fuel that is difficult to extinguish, unlike diesel used by most other tanks"
The M-1 burns JP-4,5, or 8. Same as every other US armored vehicle. But then, what is the difference between diesel and JP-8. Outside the detergents, anti-gelling addatives, and higher flash point, virtually nothing. You can easily burn commercial diesel in an M1.
I suspect Meyer might be using gasoline costs for gas airlifted into Afghanistan, especially since gasoline routed by land is an easy target for random Taliban attacks.
Anyone have /actual/ costs?
…and actually Marine/Naval units use JP-5 for shipboard use… JP-5 has a higher flash point than 4 and 8…which is less likely to ignite. So Roberto's argument is some what uninformed. The Abrams is also a psychological and deterrent weapon not just the sole use for its main gun. The USMC will never reveal the real operational use of the tank besides it's obvious ones.
"The M-1's 120mm gun has such a huge blast that it cannot fire with infantrymen 100 yards to its front or sides, lest they get a concussion."
Sorry. Total BS. I wasn't right next to it, but it was a lot less than a hundred yards. In front, sure. To the sides, no.
Roberto I suspect that you have been a tanker. Most on these pages are figures and numbers guys most of whom I suspect have never fired a 22 rabbit hunting. A cuncussion, I've seen it happen, but rarely. Argueing about fuel cost or wether its Jp4 or JP5 is silly. You can go on you tube and find 25 videos of M1s burning in Iraq in 2 minutes.
Roberto you are correct. The Marines would rather pluck their eyes out than admit they need something the Army developed. Without special equipment they would be like the Army, but with those nice 8pt hats.This is why they have to have the EFV and F-35B. The cost of operating 45yr old CH-46s would pay for many new CH-47 and UH-60s every year. Marines need suckup their pride and ask for what they need. The most feared vehicle in Afghanistan is the Polish Rosomak has 30&40mm versions and they are not afraid to use it. They were never camoflaged, kept them OD green. The taliban calls it "Green Death".
Uh, I would suspect you are no closer to being right about Roberto than roberto is being a tanker. He pulled that **** off a blog. No self respecting Tanker would; a: compare an Abrams and a Bradley and conclude they could do the same job(s), b: some how convince people a Bradley required less maintenance, personal support, or replacement parts than an Abrams, and c: believes JP-8 is jet fuel (all of you are stupid and/or naive if you truly believe these things.)
Blue thats why they were called DATs(dumb ass tankers) in M-60s and C-DATS(computerised tumb ass tankers) in M1s. Having served in a few BFV units I have no illusions about the cost of maintaining and operating any Armored vehicle. BFVs are only marginally less costly than M-1s. The M-1s turbine is classified as a Multi-fuel user basically any clean Kerosene direvitive will work. I feel a BFV is a better choice for the Marines now stated use of the M-1s. I also feel the that the Marines and Army should standardize there Armored vehicles in the instead of having the 3 current separate developement programs(USMC EFV and Medium Combat Vehicle and Army FCS followup). Actually the Iveco Super AV covers all those bases including Amphibious.
EFV would never fit into an Army vision to justify Army procurement dollars. The Marines though would be more likely to support Army research into next-gen tank. We all want to pretend that next-gen tank is going to be light and mobile, but we'll be lucky to hold the weight between 50-60 tons.
What do the Marines want out of their next land tank? I've not seen much information on their thoughts. Joint-ness with the Army is undoubtedly important to them, but remarkably little is out there, especially in comparison with other programs…
I tend to agree, though the F-35 and camo field uniforms are excellent examples of how great ideas are poorly executed. It could be fixed, but a lot of generals won’t have a job and many politicians without pork
The way I see it we're there, we're gonna be there for a while – why not send them! We're already spending tons of money fighting this war;let our guys have the best. The Optics on the M1A1 night/day can take out enemy mortar teams hit the tanks main gun can fire back! If we would have had a couple of Bradley's in Somalia – a lot of those rangers wouldn't have died tying to save their buddy's
roberto sez "A couple NATO allies have sent Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, yet these are almost half the weight of the huge M-1s and have fuel efficient diesel engines."
M1A2 weighs 68 tons; Leopard II weighs 62.3 tons. Not quite "almost half"; a lot closer to "about the same".
The Leopards do have more fuel efficient engines, at least at idle and slow speeds.
Leopard I: 42 tons
Leopard II: 62 tons.
I suspect Meyer was thinking of Leopard I, and while they are lighter many have been replaced by Leopard II. There are a few pictures of tanks floating around in Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure they're Leopard II's…
The M60 weighed in at ~50+ tons, probably not that much lighter (still need a single C17 to carry them in).
I assume that's how they're getting Leopards into the country. Meyers points regarding fuel costs and vulnerability still stand as relevant, though I still think adding more tanks means less airplanes, and less airplanes means less fuel in country.
If our primary persistent force was predominantly high-efficiency UAVs we could cut our fuel expenditures by a great deal, but that's another topic.
Western militaries have no "medium" tanks in inventory, everything will be pushing the 60+ ton range for survivability at the expense of strategic mobility. I find it funny we fight for two engines on JSF, but Abrams could use two engines, a diesel for days like this and a turbine for days like OIF and ODS…
I read some time ago that they were planning to put a APU of some sort in the M1 to conserve fuel. Did anything come of it?…..
I thought I'd seen blurbs about it in ARMOR, but here's a blurb from wikipedia:
"Using a high power density 330 cc (20 cu in) Wankel rotary engine modified to use diesel and military grade jet fuel, TARDEC developed a 220-pound (100 kg) Auxiliary Power Unit designed to fit into the M1 Abrams, replacing an existing battery pack that weighs about 500 pounds (230 kg). The new APU will also be more fuel efficient than the tank's main engine.[38] Testing of the first APUs began in 2009."
Also, looking up the Leopards it appears Canada briefly had Leopard C2's in Afghanistan, but replaced them with Leopard IIs within a year or so.
Thanks…..
Adding 14 tanks isn't going to put that big of a strain on a logistical system where the majority of transportation is done by air which uses far more fuel than 14 tanks would use. With the 120mm as long as you're not forward of the main gun its self when it goes off you can get right up along side it and since the 120 is a direct fire weapon its more likely that it'll get clearance to fire especially with the optics to get PID. I don't see how 14 tanks can be that big of a deal in a place where we are shipping hundreds of MRAPs and other vehicles.
Can anyone address Meyers point regarding the extra number of troops required to support 14 tanks in the field? It's certainly worth addressing, but a thousand troops is a drop in the bucket, and I whos to say most of that extra thousand wouldnt actually be provided by whoever is doing logistical support?
A support company that would be needed to go with that tank company would only number about 200 soldiers or Marines. Most of that article is a gross exaggeration.
Meyer may be referring to additional fuel going into the country to supply the tanks, but if they offset air support (which to provide timely support must be in the air and nearby) then fuel consumption might actually go down.
The Marines only needed 6 tanks in Mogadishu (both before and after "Blackhawk Down") – those tanks, supporting combined arms operations had significantly more of a suppressive effect than anything Rangers or SF could provide (no fault of their own). Bottom line, the bad guys just disappeared when the tanks came rolling down the streets. Tanks were also essential in Fallujah.
Bryan: Bear in mind that's six tanks for the airport and a few convoys and everything is basically within a city-sized area. The fact that a road network wasn't being saturated by IEDs meant the Abrams had comparative freedom of movement. Not anymore…Afghanistan is dispersed, low density with points to protect beyond just your own base and the airport/seaport.
He raised a valid point though, emotionally speaking, a tank is much more.. distressing to see than your average Humvee or Stryker. Also the Ranger/SF thing.. thats a valid point too. no bash intended, but when elite spec ops infantry cant achieve.. maybe its time to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
The Army has access to the M1128 Stryker MGS, which while not a perfect vehicle can still provide on the spot 105mm cannon fire support. The Marines don't have anything in that caliber until you get up to the Abrams itself.
The 25mm Bushmaster chain gun on the LAV-A2 is a good weapon, but it can't quite demolish a target like a 105mm or 120mm cannon. The Marines have lighter TOW missile carriers too, but there are some advantages to a cannon over these.
The disadvantage of the Stryker gun system is it's light armor relative to the M1; part of the advantage of having the Abrams out there is their heavy armor. Invunerable? Definitely not. Much harder to destroy? Yes……..
TUSK and TUSK-II packages both have rear birdcage devices to protect the engine grill, marines are already into ARAT/SRAT so slat system could be fabricated on the cheap, in-theater.
The Leopard that the Canadians first brought was the old 1C2 which weighs around 42 tons before the forward skirt and turret side appliques. And it was a pig because it didn't have an APU or air conditioning in heat that gets so bad you can't touch the steel. I doubt if the Marine HA era vehicles are much better.
Nothing beats the 500 dollar an hour MQ-1 Predator and I assume, given their MPMEB condition essentially means 'land warfare from landward depots', the Marines could deploy them or the similar Grey Eagle/Skywarrior/ERMP system which the Army now does.
That's four pylons for eight Griffins and about 40hrs of endurance with a 500nm radius and 30+ on station at radius.
The Marines are hung up on the 'from the sea' roles and missions justification to maintain their existence in direct competition with the IBCT/Stryker approach and so will not acknowledge the obvious. But given how few and ineffective even their jumpjets are on LHA/D it's beyond moronic to assume they can't operate from FOL bases. They did so with A-4s in SEA.
I have a feeling that the Marines want the best ISTAR FLIR they can find for the conditions and that may, unfortunately, be tied to upgrade Abrams with their new thermal wells, this still doesn't compare with MTS-B on a UAV. And with modern fuzes, you don't need to blow the building down to put 25mm explosions behind a mudbrick wall (or two or three). If you DO want to blow up a building, the best way to do it is with a SMAW or similar 'EB' weapon (including TOW). Far greater mix of ballistic range for cost than the straight maintube HEAT solution.
Really what are Marines doing in Afghanistan anyway. No oceans I know of nearby, let the Army handle the Taliban. They have plenty of Armor and know how to use it.
I think they appreciate the extra help, as opposed to the Marines sitting on LHD's off in the Gulf.
MK you are correct. while I am accused regualy of bagging on the USMC, and I do, they are on my team and I am 100% Army. In 87 thru 89 I was a exchange instructor at Marine SOI. I know how good of soldiers Marines are. I just wish the Marines were under the US Army banner not the US Navy. The navy is cutting back its amphib force back so much the Marines may only have a few years left as a credible "expeditionary" force. They would be better funded and supported. Both ground forces would have better standardization of operations, training, maintenance, aviation and procurement. Better funding for the Marines while costing less. Better all round for the Country. I'm now retired and it appears that my Government thinks all of our main job is to be a tax payero this is important.
Good Morning Folks,
I see a lot of junk posted on this topic by folks who haven’t a clue of what a tank can do.
First off the M1A1 Abrams is by test the worlds best tank. As shown, it is air deployable, it can be used in Afghanistan, and there is no need to replace it. What the Abrams brings for the Marines is direct on demand fire power with the operation element and its 120mm main gun and a couple machine guns.
The round of choice I would assume as it was in Vietnam is the canister round. What this puppy does is bring death to anything out to a 100 meters, think of a really big shotgun. It can bring Peace to the valley really quick.
The introduction of these 17 tanks is not a sign of weakness, but that the US has and will use what ever fire power it needs to do the job. For those youngsters among you it’s called winning.
When that 120mm gin is done doing its job the landscape in from of the Abrams is not pretty, it looks like a baby leaves after her/his first attempt with eating spaghetti. The land scape, what is left of it is dripping blood and chunky red/white parts of human body are sliding to the ground every where, don’t even think if finding anything that resembles a human being in the tangled slop and I wouldn’t be surprise if most of you would hurle you lunch in a matter of seconds, that’s what the Marines war is all about.
The efforts by The Heritage Foundation, Cato, American Enterprise etc. that want to spend billion of dollars on a new generation of armor don’t want the people who make the money decision to know that the M1A1 is the tank for the job and we don’t need any replacement until somebody can prove in combat that they have something that might be almost as good as Abrams.
The silliness regarding the Expeditionary role of the Marines you are way off base. Every MEG that put to sea for a deployment has a tank platoon with it (4 Tanks). The M1A1 is part of expeditionary warfare and has been since 1991.
In closing it is of interest that both China and The Russian Federation tried to get licenses to manufacture the 120mm smooth bore gun of the M1A1 for their next generation of heavy tanks. NATO refused to grant any license.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Thanks for settling things…..
Byron, it depends on what the Marines want to use their tanks for. If they want to use them to replace air support, then they may end up using whatever works best at levelling buildings. I imagine if the enemy is close enough to use canister that Marines may get mixed up in crossfire. Canister if fired into a mixed crowd of civilians and OPFOR will leave too many dead bodies for the media to find.
"The introduction of these 17 tanks is not a sign of weakness, but that the US has and will use what ever fire power it needs to do the job. For those youngsters among you it's called winning."
Indeed "winning" is something little Obama could do with a breifing on, you know what it entails and what it means, that mans a born loser so I have little hope for you Americans with him at the hem.
Good Afternoon Folks,
To blight. If the tank is there the tank commander sees the same thing at the same time as well as or better then the mission commander. I doubt that any Marine Platoon or Company Commander would even have to talk to the tank. The tank would respond the same as a rifleman, its how they are trained.
Your statement regarding collaterals is quite correct and under General Mc Crystal there would even be any tanks in theater, but General Petraeus is no Mc Crystal and tanks are in theater. General Petraeus has future plans and losing in Afghanistan is not one of them.
The difference between Special Operations (Mc Crystal) and mother Army (Petraeus) is that Special Operations goes in does their deed and leaves, the mother Army goes in kicks butt, makes a mess and say what’s next.
After the fight Special Operations get on their helicopters and leave, the regular Infantryman stays around, you’ve been in a fire fight and lost some buddies, so what the war is still there.
My guess is that Villagers will have to get in the way a couple of times like in Vietnam and the villagers will catch on and when the see a Taliban ambush being set up the will leave Dodge. This also is a sign to the American that there is a party being planned up ahead.
I doubt that the Marines in Afghanistan will do as their granddaddies did in “Eye Corp” in 1968 and put their tanks on line and roll over and through the Village after an ambush. We are more sophisticated then that now. We now set up sound trucks and make them listen to Sec. of State Hillary speak for 24 hours.
The Marines lost a lot of men in past months, at some point some General is going to say enough is enough and start to fight these guys as if we were in a war. As a Captain at Fallugah, (Hotel Company 2/5 Marines?) said after he lost three men in his company while they sere just holding a building: “We have played paddy cake with them long enough.”
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Good Evening Folks,
Hi blight. I have a great deal of respect for light forces to include the 82nd. and 101st Divisions but they are not intended to be there for the long haul. Like the marines they are designed for the first 72 hours of combat after that you need the bug heavy fellows to carry the load and that is Mech Infantry, Armor and Heavy Tube Artillery.
That tail that the big boys bring is how the fuel, food, bullets and other necessities of war get to the soldier and how the wounded get out while still alive.
The Marines in the amphibious mode like to take and secure the beach, build up supply and they have Army forces move through and take the fight inland. Army amphibious doctrine is quite a bit different. Take the sand and keep moving inland and funnel supplies over the beach. Move inland and then set up a supply depots and red ball to the Infantry and armor push at the Enemy.
Two different ways of doing the same thing, both work. The use of Special Operations under different chains of command tend to confuse things and in the process gets people killed. I’m in favor of Special Operations being though the normal Marine and/or Army chain(s) of command and under the operational jurisdiction of the local commander. To many Generals egos is not a good thing in combat.
One Command Concept that is gaining notice is to keep all levels of command above Battalion at sea. This would solve a huge force protection problem, free more troops for combat, simplify logistics and have all the senior commander at one place instead of spread out all over a theater.
The large bases that we have seeing for years in both Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive, wasteful, more fuel goes to running stationary generators at command centers the to both aircraft and vehicles in Afghanistan, present targets to the enemy. a Colonel killed in Iraq was on an exercise bike in the gym when the bad guys dropped in a couple of mortar rounds. This is the ultimate of a preventable casualty. A smaller foot print will reduce casualties, save money, reduce the need for large truck convoys through enemy controlled areas and make leaving faster and cheaper.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Light forces seem to be providing an equitable share of the bleeding and dying. They did their rotations in Iraq, for instance. On paper we may say that light forces shouldn't be present in sustained roles, but battlefield use in WW2 and Vietnam bears out differently. These forces, when properly supported can play a particular role, but the real question is if its the role we are looking for. If someone sends the 82nd to Afghanistan out of a need for infantry boots on the ground, it would seem to be a waste of their airborne training: however if no other unit is available for that rotation (either because other units have already rotated in in the past X months or because another NATO ally draws down or pulls out) then you send what you have.
I'd forgotten about the logistics involved in supplying generators: heck, it was probably brought up here on DefTech in a renewable energy article. The large bases we see are probably more a consequence of the Air Force's requirements than the Armys. You can break down army combat power into combat outposts, but the Air Force is unlikely to penny-packet their airplanes for efficiency reasons.
Byron, just read your three big posts and have to ask are you well? Nothing on content, but I've never seen spelling gaffs in your posts. Hope you're doing well. Agree about all especially on foot print. During my tours in Iraq and Afghanistan I thought the situation surreal! Do we really need Pizza Hut and Internet cafes in a war zone?
As for chains of command, I'm too familiar with those headaches. I'm currently reading of Field Marshal Von Rundstedt and his trials with Jodl, Dietrich, Brandenberger and Von Manteuffel. It compares his staff with Eisenhower's. Should be require for all Captain(P) on up.
I also like to hear your views on Marines and Army standardization of their Armored vehicles in the instead of having the 3 current separate developement programs(USMC EFV and Medium Combat Vehicle and Army FCS followup).
The US marines believe in shcok and awe, what better way to get that then to have the enemy confront the 70 ton M1A2 tank up close and personal. The tank adds a psycological aspect to the Marines in country.
seriously you crowd have been watching too many balls and bullets movies.
the terrain in afganistan is non-conducive to tanks period – if you dont believe me, ask a russian. biggest screw up they made was trying to turn it into a tank war.
this is PR pure and simple, and i say good on 'em (the marines) for giving it a go. if they dont use what they have then the clowns in power will take it from them, leaving asses out in the cold when the material (in this case tanks) is actually needed.
sure its overkill, sure heavy tanks will rpove next to useless when light tanks would do much better in the terrain, but dont blame that on the marines – theyre just improvising like theyre supposed to do, blame it on the politicians who wont provide them with what they need and want to remove what theyve got.
That depends on which parts of Afghanistan you're looking at. In the mountainous north, Ahmed Shah Massound, Lion of the Panjshir Valley, held off the Soviets for many years. The defenses he used would later hold the northern sliver of Afghanistan for the Northern Alliance.
In the south, there are more open spaces, especially near the southwest (like Herat). Helmand (one or two provinces over), if I recall has a southern half which is sloping plains. Perfect tank country if there was ever tank country. It's like saying California is terrible tank country, even though NTC is in Fort Irwin. Yes, California has plenty of mountains, especially along the Pacific Coast north of Santa Barbara but in the lowlands around the Valley and the Inland Empire it's mixed hills but mostly open country.
Vietnam was previously thought of as poor tank country due to "jungle" and "monsoon season". Monsoon seasons aren't all the time, and the central highlands (which were the most strategically important part of RVN anyways) were plains, and thus amenable to armor operations. I need to re-read Mounted Combat in Vietnam in more detail for specifics, but…
For reference, a wikipedia map of Helmand province:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AFGH_HELM_SOTS-…
I know it's not as useful as a topo map, but most of the major urban settlements are in light hilly areas. That and the tectonic plates that produce the Hindu Kush are more to the east and the north than to the south.
being 'flat' doesnt make for good tank terrain.
soil composition and structure along with moisture content are very big issues.
in this case heavy tanks will ONLY be usefull on metalled surfaces (roads) as the fine grain dust with no moisture to bond it together will just bog them down – stuck tank = dead tank, add that to the many gullies and pits which dont show up on topo maps. light to medium tanks or fighting vehicles stand a much greater chance of survival in these conditions than a heavy unit as they are less likely to get stuck and require assistance, assistance which will just turn into more targets.
……..but the medium and light armored vehicles are vulnerable anyway because of their lack of heavy armor and firepower. I'd take the heavy armor any day…..
True, but our light and medium forces are on wheels, which are worse. Ground pressure from an Abrams is what, 15psi? (I dont have the number handy). The Humvees, especially up armored ones and MRAPs might not be better, if at all.
I was at Nassyria in the 03 invasion of Iraq. Flat desert. Perfect tank terrain! It was until 2nd Marines tried to push their M1s thru the city's giant septic fields. Armor is awesome unless you try to move thru 6-12ft deep crap!
Most of the Marines are in Helmand which would be perfect for tanks as long as you don't get too deep into the green zone or else you'll just be tearin up farm fields. But out on the edges its open desert with dry canals that the talies like to use as tranches. A tank can roll right over a 2 foot trench, an MRAPs and Hummvees get stuck and roll in motor pools. We stopped taking vics just for the reason that it took longer trying to find a road or crossing than actually getting to the objective not to mention that if IEDs were going to be placed it was on one of the 3 roads in the whole AO.
an old 500lb bomb with a cell phone and a demo cap can take one of these out. Easily. We still have an airforce, right? These tanks needs lots of logistics, cannot get fire over the top of a hill, have trouble on narrow roads, limit mobility and range, and can easily be blown up by ied, like we saw in Iraq. Bad move.
Considering the track record of well-equipped infiltrator/sappers from VN against aircraft, I'd hesitate to suggest that air power can replace armor in the field. Aircraft runways usually should be free of craters from artillery or debris that could pose FOD problems, so ensuring that someone's runways are free of debris is often easier than going through the trouble of burying dozens of IEDs in every place you anticipate a tank showing up at. Air power's advantage is the ability to be very timely, to arrive where a tank cannot go or cannot get to in time, and to deliver enormous volumes of firepower. Properly equipped, a single bomb truck can drop more explosive power in terms of weight than the equivalent of a tank delivering main gun rounds (though a tank can fire at more targets, having more main gun ammunition than a fighter can carry bombs).
Good Morning Folks,
Hi blight. On airborne forces. Once they hit the ground they are Light Infantry and as soon as they connect to the tail they hook up with the vehicles, support units (MP’s, Intelligence, Artillery, armor, MRAP’s etc.) ammo depots, Medical facilities etc. They are in Fact Infantry.
On you constant reference regard ing the Leg vs. Bird Sh** in the ranks of General officers, its true there are more Legs and Track Heads then Bird Sh** in the ranks, thus one would have to expect more Armor and Infantry Generals. If you want to do a little US military History search look up Maxwell Taylor and James Gavin and the Airborne Mafia. Their gift to US History was my war Vietnam.
Tracks in the Jungle, in 1966 I deployed with the 11th. Armored Calvary Regiment. I think that the history of that unit disproved the CW at the time about the use of Armor in jungle warfare.
Tanks can, and did go anywhere the ground forces needed to go including the mekong Delta and the 9th. Division AO. By 1968 Infantry were converting some of their Leg Battalions to Mech. Infantry (example 1/16 Infantry 1ID).
The M-113 in the Vietnam ACAV configuration was an excellent killing machine. I personally was in an engagement where a platoon of M-113 ACAV’Ss took on a NVA Regiment and with in 15 minuted, way before the air or artillery could respond the battle had been decided.
Granted four Americans were killed, all friends, and another 20 Plus wounded bad enough to require Dust Off, but the NVA filled up three mass grave (estimated about a 100 NVA in each pit) that were dug by an M-48 Dozer Tank.
I’m sure once that the M-1A1′s come into use in Afghanistan, and they get a few Bradley’s to the Army the same results will come about. Up close heavy armor with large cal. weapons kills. In the long run this is more efficient killing and less collaterals will be killed then from air strikes, especially now that the AF and Navy want to attack from 10,000 ft. Its a lot easier to sort targets at 50-100 meters, where most of the fight on the ground tales place then from 10K feet.
The messy part is when the bang,bang is over , the Armor guys stand on top of their vehicle and admire their work and the “dismounts” the Bloody Infantry, have to go in and sort through the mess of bodies and body parts, believe it or not this is a rather good use (justification) for the bayonet, the pocking through what is left after a fire fight, looking for any on formation that could be of value to Intelligence. , then picking up what is left of the bodies and putting them and their parts in holes, most of the time we, have a handy dozer tank around and we had to doused the bodies and assorted body parts with fuel and burned them off, dead bodies laying around become a public health problem.
There you guys have the “romanic” like in the field of both Armor and Infantry. Air Artillery and the other stand off weapons are done with the cease fire order but not the Infantry or Armor guys, there day/night has just begun.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Ok, simple way to solve this, everyone who is a tanker or worked with tanks stand up, the rest sit down, shut up, and color. If you’ve never PERSONALLY been in a tank while conducting maneuvers, how in the **** can you tell others what tanks can and can’t do, “but I read a book once and CNN had this report and stuff…” bah. Go play computer games to excerise that vast arsenal of tactics you gained from watching the News. In the mean time, I’ll continue to cross my fingers for a chance to railhead my tank for the ‘stan
actually i was in the 2nd royal tank regiment and was an engineer on both chieftains and challengers, so yeah, afganistan will be very bad for heavy tanks
Wait, an engineer, so you weren’t on tanks, doesn’t that mean you should be sitting quitely coloring? Just because you were in a tank regiment doesn’t make you in any sense of the word a Tanker. Shot gunnery? Conducted Maneuvers in one? On the ground entering a building while tanks backed you up? No? Time to break out the crayons. Yes, as an engineer you dig my fighting positions, build bridges so i can have freedom of maneuver, and provide a host of other multipliers, but does that mean you can tell me about my tactics? I’m going with no. I don’t tell engineers on how they can better improve a bridge or how they can dig faster, not my lane. Just as non-tankers should stay out of armor tactics.
Everything we have in Helmand should be helicopter portable.
If you have anything that weighs more then that, youre doing it wrong.
Helmand is pretty straightforward. There is TONS of room to build a few bases outside of the river valley where the population lives. And then its just a matter of spying on them and picking out the bad guys with drones. In Northern Helmand you need the mountain soldiers up on the mountains overlooking the villages being resupplied by heli's. but same general principal instead youre using artillery instead of drones.
This is what my Google Earth General skills says anyways. Its a classic scenario for the whole "Lightweight Army" concept. Its a long ways from easy resupply. Flat open terrain for most of the region. And the population is centered up and down the river. You dont need to send troops in when you can sit on the outskirts and pick them from afar with artillery and from the sky.
Just have to be careful of civvies. We should wiretap the villages with like rocks disguised as sensors and all that super spy stuff.
It sounds like it knows what im talking about, but really im just mocking. I have no idea.
Why not just use those "intelligent munitions" strung out along the route they want to protect? Some remotely operated mines to stop vehicles if we so choose.
Put up signs that say "Sorry this road is closed, if you enter you will likely die. Sorry for the inconveinance."
Problem solved, We saved 1.2 million gallons of gas we would of used shipping tanks in and probably half a billion dollars surplus we can use to conduct a study why this tank idea ever came up in the first place.
Because we are trying to win the good will of the people (uh, right?). If we had wanted to go for efficiency we would have just nuked them back to the Stone Age……
I just have to believe that most people here have never deployed to a war zone or ever will. Read MCDP-1 and at least establish a baseline for the method of thinking that commanders rely on to establish fighting strategies. As a junior officer, i'd bring a tank just for the array of optics but thats overkill. And what the hell is overkill….
In reply to a previous post M1 tanks can and do burn Diesel/kerosene/JP4 or 5/MOGAS etc. Usually they burn Diesel though.
On another note:
Too bad they don't bring back the old white phosphorous, HighExplosivePlastic, and beehive rounds from the original M1's to the M1A1-M1A2. They would extend the usefulness of tanks in theis AOA although HEAT rounds are effective against field fortifications.
How many M1A1 make up a company? Just main battle tanks and not support vehicles. Thanks
For the Army, 15. 3x platoons of four tanks apiece, plus two tanks and misc units.
The M1A1 is perfectly suited to do the job(s) : convoy protection, nighttime mobile pillbox that can see the whole battlefield a few ridge-lines away, a few could park in an known Taliban village/supply route, with infantry and draw fire so the drones, air-force elements and artillery can do their job: kill by overwhelming firepower. As far as convoy support or main routes patrols, drones or Apache's could fly over-watch at night and kill any body one the roads planting I.E.D.S. Isn't that the point to kill the enemy. We've pretty much slipped back to Vietnam tactic's: give them something to attack; dangle it in front of them then kill with over whelming firepower. Look what happened at F.O.B. Wanat. they just got us asleep!
Wow, this thread is full of people that don't know what they are talking about. I'm basing my statement on 21 years in the Army with 2 years in a heavy Cavalry Squadron with Abrams and Bradleys, 3 years in a Stryker Brigade including a year long deployment to Afghanistan (including the same area these tanks went to), 9 years of time in Airborne units(including a deployment to Afghanistan and another to Iraq), and 2 more years in the 10th Mountain Division and time playing out at the Mountain course at Camp Ethan Allen, Vermont. Tanks can be successful in southern Afghanistan, and actually have better offroad mobility than Strykers or HMMWVs.
The terrain in Helmand and Kandahar provinces have a lot in common with the Army's National Training Center in southern California, where the Army's heavy brigades have been playing force on force wargames since the early 80s. The US Army and the Germans did armored warfare in desert mountainous terrain against each other in 1942 and 1943 in North Africa with tanks a helluva lot less capable. TOW missiles are wonderful when they work (and I've seen several go ballistic…), but a TOW carrier is fairly limited on how many missiles they can carry. They take a lot longer to reload and get the second one on the way than it does for a tank to fire two rounds, and TOW missiles are pretty damn expensive (about 50 times more expensive than the 120mm MPAT round). A Stryker isn't as survivable against IEDs; I know, because my Brigade lost 34 Soldiers to IEDs in Afghanistan and every one of them were on a Stryker.
It does NOT require 1000 Marines or Soldiers to support a company of tanks; who came up with that fuzzy math? There are 14 tanks in the company, each with a 4 man crew including the Company Commander and Executive Officer; 56 personnel. Add a tank retriever or two and a maintenance section, a commo section, a supply sergeant and clerk, the First Sergeant and his driver and an orderly room clerk and NCO and you are close to 80. The M1 is capable of rolling on its own tracks anywhere in southern Afghanistan, the tank transporters aren't needed. Plenty of M1 tanks rolled from Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003 without ever needing a lift. The fuel specialists and ammo specialists would easily be able to keep up with the increased inventory, no need to plus them up. Supply parts would get handled through existing channels, no need to add personnel there. The total personnel footprint increase because of a company of tanks might top out at 100, which means someone is exagerating by a factor of ten to make things look worse.
Yes, a big IED weighing 800 lbs or more of homemade explosives could severely damage or destroy an M1, but the big IEDs are a LOT more resource intensive to construct, a lot harder to transport without getting caught, and a lot harder to emplace. The big IEDs are also a lot easier for us to find, and the crew is more likely to survive the vast majority of IED strikes than in almost any other vehicle out there. All of the arguments against the M1 in Afghanistan just don't stack up against the facts.
Regarding wiki:
For the A2 in FY99. (Dunno if this is baseline or SEP). Also can't find TUSK per unit costs.
From wiki, the order is 505 TUSKs for 45 mil, + 30-59 mil for "reactive armor kits for M1A2" (presumably this means all non-TUSK M1A2s).
45 mil to upgrade 505 Abrams with TUSK is impressive, considering that similar game-changing upgrades to aircraft don't often cost so little per unit.
The only reason why the airborne cannot is because the Army is dominated by tankers. The Russian airborne has armor, artillery and airmobile units, which worked fairly well in the Ogaden against a Soviet-organized foe. The Airborne seemed to do alright in Chechenya except for when it came to Grozny (but all branches of the Russian military suffered in MOUT).
If we had the capabilities of the Russian airborne, mated to American total air dominance it would be a force to be absolutely feared: and it would be a credible deterrence in 3GW. For instance, if we fought OIF with a combined arms Airborne the 82nd could've dropped in in lieu of the 4th (which was denied ground access by Turkey).
Yeesh, commenters on this site are so anti-marines. Why is it just assumed that they are pitiful in all fields?
I see this all the time.
"Well, I bet if it were an Army HMMWV that IED wouldn't have gone off."
People are either very for, or very against, a large Marine Corps.
The "anywhere in 48 hours" is dependent on how close the Marines at sea would be. I remember them taking longer to intervene in Liberia, for instance. Ships going at 30 knots a day, two days is 55 mile range.
The Army had a small IRC in Europe of mixed Abrams/Bradleys but not sure how that worked out.
My suspicion that the real answer is: unless said nation is on the radar and Marine forces are parked nearby out of sight and out of mind, Marine response times are low. I am sure this response time is also compromised by troop deployments in AfPak. The Army seems to have deferred the strategic mobility problem, hoping that the IRC can save the day…if the 82nd can seize an airfield and allow airlandings. If.
We made the choice during the Clinton years to kill AGS, Wireless TOW and such to save money, but caved when it came to Crusader and FCS (the former killed by Rumsfeld and the latter coming back again and again like a zombie). If we return to nation-state war, we may need Crusader. If we anticipate a need to airdrop and want tanks as a side order, the we need to pick up AGS again. AGS is a light tank that no service has. I imagine a lighter version could be designed for the Marines for airlift, since it weighs in at 19 tons, putting it out of range of airlift.
I think the fire lane is around 45-65 degrees from the tank front if I remember.
From FM 3-90-2, Appendix A, section 24:
a. Discarding Sabot. Tank sabot rounds and BFV antipersonnel rounds discard stabilizing petals when fired, creating a downrange hazard for infantry. The aluminum petals of the tank rounds are discarded in an area extending 70 meters to the left and right of the gun-target line, out to a range of 1 kilometer. The danger zone for BFV rounds extends 30 degrees to the left and right of the gun-target line, out to 200 meters from the vehicle. Infantrymen should not be in or near the direct line of fire for the tank main gun or BFV cannon unless they are under adequate overhead cover.
b. Noise. Tank main guns create noise in excess of 140 decibels. Repeated exposure to this level of noise can cause severe hearing loss and even deafness. In addition, dangerous noise levels may extend more than 600 meters from the tank. Single-layer hearing protection, such as earplugs, allows infantrymen to work within 25 meters of the side or rear of the tank without significant hazard.
It's not particularly specific about blast, regrettably.
The alternative would be invoking Mike Sparks and saying M113s can act as a tracked mobile force, but they lack direct fire support capability as it is. I wonder if a 90mm Cockerill would work, or putting in a light turret a la Scorpion or Scimitar.
Still doesn't fix the armor problem……
Correct, but it frees up air support and reduces fuel consumption, which is one of the other things that the shipment of M1's to Afghanistan is supposed to do.
"I completely understand my role as a Marine. Do you?"
Please, enlighten us.
It's called Title X. Feel free to read.
Anything outside the scope is trying to make resources work in order to prevent a particular service from being overused.
If you need further explanation, please quit your profession. McDonalds is hiring.