U.S. deploying Abrams to Afghanistan

[[R_H]]

WaPo: "U.S. deploying heavily armored battle tanks for first time in Afghan war"

The U.S. military is sending a contingent of heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war, defense officials said, a shift that signals a further escalation in the aggressive tactics that have been employed by American forces this fall to attack the Taliban.


The deployment of a company of M1 Abrams tanks, which will be fielded by the Marines in the country's southwest, will allow ground forces to target insurgents from a greater distance - and with more of a lethal punch - than is possible from any other U.S. military vehicle. The 68-ton tanks are propelled by a jet engine and equipped with a 120mm main gun that can destroy a house more than a mile away.

Despite an overall counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes the use of troops to protect Afghan civilians from insurgents, statistics released by the NATO military command in Kabul and interviews with several senior commanders indicate that U.S. troop operations over the past two months have been more intense and have had a harder edge than at any point since the initial 2001 drive to oust the Taliban government.

The pace of Special Operations missions to kill or capture Taliban leaders has more than tripled over the past three months. U.S. and NATO aircraft unleashed more bombs and missiles in October - 1,000 total - than in any single month since 2001. In the districts around the southern city of Kandahar, soldiers from the Army's 101st Airborne Division have demolished dozens of homes that were thought to be booby-trapped, and they have used scores of high-explosive line charges - a weapon that had been used only sparingly in the past - to blast through minefields.

Some of the tougher methods, particularly Special Operations night raids, have incensed Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who told The Washington Post last week that the missions were undermining support for the U.S.-led war effort. But senior U.S. military officials involved in running the war contend that the raids, as well as other aggressive measures, have dealt a staggering blow to the insurgency.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss specific tactics, said the combination of the raids, the airstrikes and the use of explosives on the ground have been instrumental in improving security in areas around Kandahar, a Taliban stronghold that has been the focus of coalition operations this fall.

"We've taken the gloves off, and it has had huge impact," one of the senior officials said.

That, in turn, appears to have put U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander, in a much stronger position heading into a Friday meeting of NATO heads of state in Lisbon, where Afghanistan will be a key topic of discussion. It also will help the general make his case that the military's strategy is working when President Obama and his advisers conduct a review of the war next month.

A U.S. officer familiar with the decision said the tanks will be used initially in parts of northern Helmand province, where the Marines have been engaged in intense combat against resilient Taliban cells that typically are armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs. The initial deployment calls for about 16 tanks, but the overall number and area of operations could expand depending on needs, the officer said.

"The tanks bring awe, shock and firepower," the officer said. "It's pretty significant."

Although the officer acknowledged that the use of tanks this many years into the war could be seen as a sign of desperation by some Afghans and Americans, he said they will provide the Marines with an important new tool in missions to flush out pockets of insurgent fighters. A tank round is far more accurate than firing artillery, and it can be launched much faster than having to wait for a fighter jet or a helicopter to shoot a missile or drop a satellite-guided bomb.

"Tanks give you immediate, protected firepower and mobility to address a threat that's beyond the range" of machine guns that are mounted on the mine-resistant trucks that most U.S. troops use in Afghanistan, said David Johnson, a senior researcher at the Rand Corp. who co-wrote a recent paper on the use of tanks in counterinsurgency operations.

The Marines had wanted to take tanks into Afghanistan when they began deploying in large numbers in spring 2009, but the top coalition commander then, Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, rejected the request, in part because of concern it could remind Afghans of the tank-heavy Soviet occupation in the 1980s. As it became clear that other units were getting the green light to engage in more heavy-handed measures, the Marines asked again, noting that Canadian and Danish troops had used a small number of tanks in southern Afghanistan. This time, the decision rested with Petraeus, who has been in charge of coalition forces in Afghanistan since July. He approved it last month, the officials said.

Use of intense force

Although Petraeus is widely regarded as the father of the military's modern counterinsurgency doctrine, which emphasizes the role of governance, development and other forms of soft power in stabilization missions, he also believes in the use of intense force, at times, to wipe out opponents and create conditions for population-centric operations. A less-recognized aspect of the troop surge he commanded in Iraq in 2007 involved a significant increase in raids and airstrikes.

"Petraeus believes counterinsurgency does not mean just handing out sacks of wheat seed," said a senior officer in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency"doesn't mean you don't blow up stuff or kill people who need to be killed."

Since his arrival in Kabul, Petraeus has permitted - and in some cases encouraged - the use of tougher measures than his predecessors, the officials said. Soon after taking charge, he revised a tactical directive issued by the commander he replaced, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, to prohibit subordinate officers from placing additional restrictions on the use of air and artillery strikes.

"There is more top-cover support for appropriate aggression," said a civilian adviser to the NATO command in Kabul.

The adviser said McChrystal, who spent much of his military career in secretive Special Operations units, might have been reluctant to increase the tempo of night raids and airstrikes because it could have created the perception that he was not sufficiently supportive of the counterinsurgency strategy. McChrystal also sought to limit raids and airstrikes because errant missions had resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians, stoking Karzai's anger and threatening to disrupt relations between the two countries.

"Because Petraeus is the author of the COIN [counterinsurgency] manual, he can do whatever he wants. He can manage the optics better than McChrystal could," the adviser said. "If he wants to turn it up to 11, he feels he has the moral authority to do it."

Despite Karzai's recent criticism of the raids and the overall posture of coalition forces - he said he wants military operations reduced - there have been relatively few reports of civilian casualties associated with the recent uptick in raids, airstrikes and explosive demolitions. Military officials said that is because of better intelligence, increased precautions to minimize collateral damage and the support of local leaders who might otherwise be complaining about the tactics. In Kandahar, local commanders have sought the support of the provincial governor and district leaders for the destruction of homes and fields to remove bombs and mines.

"The difference is that the Afghans are underwriting this," said the senior officer in Afghanistan.

Repeated complaints

But many residents near Kandahar do not share the view. They have lodged repeated complaints about the scope of the destruction with U.S. and Afghan officials. In one October operation near the city, U.S. aircraft dropped about two dozen 2,000-pound bombs.

In another recent operation in the Zhari district, U.S. soldiers fired more than a dozen mine-clearing line charges in a day. Each one creates a clear path that is 100 yards long and wide enough for a truck. Anything that is in the way - trees, crops, huts - is demolished.

"Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?" a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.

Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, "in effect, you're connecting the government to the people," the senior officer said.

So now the Danes, the Canadians and the Americans will have MBTs in Afghanistan. Are any other countries thinking of deploying MBTs?

[Sarevok]

How do they plan on supporting heavy armor units in landlocked Afganistan ? Will they airlift all of it ?

[Rogue 9]

"Jet engine?"

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, that was a swing and a miss. An Abrams uses jet fuel, which is probably where they got confused.

[TimothyC]

"Jet engine?"

It's a gas turbine, same as a jet engine (and same as most modern ships).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The gas turbine will be a guzzler in that environment, especially when they can't go high speed in the rocky terrain.

[Stravo]

Does this action refute the notion being floated since the Iraq war that the US needs to move away from heavy armor and stick to things like the Stryker to be lighter and leaner?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, bear in mind that apparently for the previous nine years, there was no US heavy armor in Afghanistan. So the fact that now they finally decide to deploy a small number of heavy tanks hardly indicates a policy preference for using them.

[Shroom Man 777]

But they wouldn't be sending the tanks there to serve as 60+ ton paperweights for giant sheets of insurgency papers, would they? So even in a crappy environment, the tank turns out to have use after all. It is also notable that this comes at a time when they are intensificating their operations in A-stan, and that the intensificity of their ops today are more intensificated than the previous years. So that is something.

[Ritterin Sophia]

"Jet engine?"

It's a gas turbine, same as a jet engine (and same as most modern ships).

Yeah, the AGT1500 was developed into the PLT27, competing (and losing) against the T700 in three different competitions to power the AH-64, CH-60, and SH-60.

[AniThyng]

I think more to the point, Turbofans and Turbojets are types of "jet engines" that happen to use gas turbines to generate thrust, while tanks, ships and helos (and turboprops?) use them to rotate the driveshaft...

I say it's more likely they conflated "jet engines" and "gas turbines" because nearly all jets you'd see use turbines.

[dragon]

As I doubt theres a railroad they can use what planes will have to be used? The C-5 can carry two and the C-17 can carry one. Are there any other planes that can carry them?

[folti78]

As I doubt theres a railroad they can use what planes will have to be used? The C-5 can carry two and the C-17 can carry one. Are there any other planes that can carry them?

Chartered AN-124 perharps?

[Sea Skimmer]

The Washington Post is full of shit, I am absurdly unsurprised. M1 tanks have been deployed at Bagram air base since 2004 and the Marines have been using one of the assault breacher variants since 2007 or so. This may be the first time the tanks are intended for offensive use but that’s not the same thing at all.

As I doubt theres a railroad they can use what planes will have to be used? The C-5 can carry two and the C-17 can carry one. Are there any other planes that can carry them?

A C-5 can only carry two of the earliest model M1 tanks, anyone of the remotely new variants is too heavy to double up. Railroads do reach Afghanistan but we don't use them to move weapons, all weapons and ammo are airlifted in.

[Tanasinn]

Jesus Christ, they're deploying a heavy tank that guzzles gas in a country made mostly of mountains? That seems rather dumb on its face.

[dragon]

Jesus Christ, they're deploying a heavy tank that guzzles gas in a country made mostly of mountains? That seems rather dumb on its face.

Unless they plan on using them as movable sentries emplacements, checkpoints and such. So they will most likely do few or limited patrol if the US was concerned with fuel, but you know how politicians are.

[[R_H]]

Well, bear in mind that apparently for the previous nine years, there was no US heavy armor in Afghanistan. So the fact that now they finally decide to deploy a small number of heavy tanks hardly indicates a policy preference for using them.

MARINNNES have had the breacher variant of the Abrams in Afghanistan for awhile now.

edit: Skimmer beat me to the bit about the breacher vehicles.

Jesus Christ, they're deploying a heavy tank that guzzles gas in a country made mostly of mountains? That seems rather dumb on its face.

News flash, they're (they being large military vehicles in general) all gas guzzlers. That's the price of mechanised warfare, baby.

[Pelranius]

Jesus Christ, they're deploying a heavy tank that guzzles gas in a country made mostly of mountains? That seems rather dumb on its face.

There's a lot of flat territory in the south where the Taliban have occasionally tried to slip in.

[Beowulf]

Jesus Christ, they're deploying a heavy tank that guzzles gas in a country made mostly of mountains? That seems rather dumb on its face.

Hey dumbshit, learn your fucking geography:

The deployment of a company of M1 Abrams tanks, which will be fielded by the Marines in the country's southwest

See how fucking flat the SW of Afghanistan is? Jesus Christ, did your mother drop you on your head so many times that you'll talk about stuff without having any conception of what the hell your talking about? Shut up, and learn something before you start with the typographical diarrhea.

[[R_H]]

Does this action refute the notion being floated since the Iraq war that the US needs to move away from heavy armor and stick to things like the Stryker to be lighter and leaner?

A wheeled APC generally won't have as good cross country mobility (tactical mobility as well?) as a tracked vehicle. Wheels have advantages like needing less logistical support, being cheaper, being quieter, etc.

You can only go light to a certain extent, beyond that there's not enough armour to be surviveable or it's really expensive to have light but still an effective amount of armour to provide protection.

[Jim Raynor]

Does this action refute the notion being floated since the Iraq war that the US needs to move away from heavy armor and stick to things like the Stryker to be lighter and leaner?

They already abandoned Future Combat Systems last year. The massive MRAP purchases have resulted in a fleet of new vehicles being used for Humvee roles, but much heavier than the Humvee. I wouldn't be surprised if added protection and anti-IED features like V-hulls become a standard requirement in future vehicles. The recent Ground Combat Vehicle program to find a Bradley replacement came up with weight projections in the ballpark of 70 tons, as much as an Abrams tank. Which is freaking heavy and on the opposite extreme of FCS. GCV was delayed so the Army could revise its requirements.

The Stryker itself didn't meet initial weight goals, and weren't as easily transportable by C-130 as was hoped. It has since gained weight from survivability kits and new equipment. The Army is now evaluating whether to drop the C-130 requirement.