User Panel
Posted: 12/13/2010 12:58:54 PM EST
"kick ass and take names!"
YOUTUBE - US Marine tanks arrive in Afghanistan |
|
i will be there in three weeks....maybe i will get up close and personal and check them out, if allowed
|
|
i wonder how many of those aweosme "shotgun" rounds theyll get to use
|
|
Quoted:
i wonder how many of those aweosme "shotgun" rounds theyll get to use Not nearly enough, it will probably take an act of congress to be able to use this for fear of hurting the poor taliban. |
|
I dont pretend to be a strategist, but I hope these tanks are employed properly.
Doesnt the terrain in A-stan make it pretty difficult to get the most out of an Abrams? I mean, I am sure there are areas where they could be productive, but I hope they dont end up as just an easy target for IED's etc. Again, I am a total layman, but IIRC the Soviets didnt fare too well with their tanks. I realize we are simply superior to the Soviets, but the Haji's surely remember the success they had against the commies. I love Abram's almost as much as I love Soldiers and Marines., and I will be praying that they really are the multiplier they can be. |
|
Quoted: I dont pretend to be a strategist, but I hope these tanks are employed properly. Doesnt the terrain in A-stan make it pretty difficult to get the most out of an Abrams? I mean, I am sure there are areas where they could be productive, but I hope they dont end up as just an easy target for IED's etc. Again, I am a total layman, but IIRC the Soviets didnt fare too well with their tanks. I realize we are simply superior to the Soviets, but the Haji's surely remember the success they had against the commies. I love Abram's almost as much as I love Soldiers and Marines., and I will be praying that they really are the multiplier they can be. Where the marines are, its flat as far as the eye can see. |
|
Quoted: I dont pretend to be a strategist, but I hope these tanks are employed properly. Doesnt the terrain in A-stan make it pretty difficult to get the most out of an Abrams? I mean, I am sure there are areas where they could be productive, but I hope they dont end up as just an easy target for IED's etc. Again, I am a total layman, but IIRC the Soviets didnt fare too well with their tanks. I realize we are simply superior to the Soviets, but the Haji's surely remember the success they had against the commies. I love Abram's almost as much as I love Soldiers and Marines., and I will be praying that they really are the multiplier they can be. I don't think that will be much of a problem. The M-1 tanks limitations are well known and I'm sure they will take that into consideration. Also, the Danes and Canadians have been using their Leopard 1 and leopard 2 tanks for several year now with quite a lot of success. The Swedes may have been doing the same also, but I' not sure. I week or two ago I read an article about how US Marines were working with the Danes in order to get some 'pointers' on how they have been employing their Leopard 2's. I'm sure the lessons learned already will assist the Marines in their use of them also. What interests me is to see a comparison of the Marine Corps use of the M-1 tank and the Army's use of the Stryker Mobile Gun System over there. Each offer significant advantages over the other and I would like to see a write up and lessons learned with the two.... -K |
|
I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion..
|
|
Quoted:
i will be there in three weeks....maybe i will get up close and personal and check them out, if allowed where at? IM if you wish |
|
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from.
largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. |
|
Quoted: I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion.. Have you ever seen what Marine Tanks do to bad guys? They shoot EVERYONE with heat rounds. EVERYONE. You can be on comms, and tell them to put co-ax on a building to suppress it, guess what? Heat round. Bunch of overachievers! When I asked them why they shot thier main gun at everything, the gunner said it was because they never got this much live ammo trainng, and wanted to get it while the gettings good! |
|
Quoted: I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. Yeah I feel like lighter armor, with lighter guns would be just as, or more effective than full on tanks. But IED threat still I guess
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion.. Have you ever seen what Marine Tanks do to bad guys? They shoot EVERYONE with heat rounds. EVERYONE. You can be on comms, and tell them to put co-ax on a building to suppress it, guess what? Heat round. Bunch of overachievers! When I asked them why they shot thier main gun at everything, the gunner said it was because they never got this much live ammo trainng, and wanted to get it while the gettings good! Nope...there were never any Marine tanks in the places I got to play in.....come to think of it...there weren't any Marines either |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont pretend to be a strategist, but I hope these tanks are employed properly. Doesnt the terrain in A-stan make it pretty difficult to get the most out of an Abrams? I mean, I am sure there are areas where they could be productive, but I hope they dont end up as just an easy target for IED's etc. Again, I am a total layman, but IIRC the Soviets didnt fare too well with their tanks. I realize we are simply superior to the Soviets, but the Haji's surely remember the success they had against the commies. I love Abram's almost as much as I love Soldiers and Marines., and I will be praying that they really are the multiplier they can be. This is Helmand: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/15/article-1182253-04F31028000005DC-435_468x311.jpg The Canadians and Danes found their Leopards to be a great asset at delivering long range,precision hate and discontent. Wasn't the final scene of Rambo 3 shot in Helmand. You know where they crash a tank into a helicopter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. Yeah I feel like lighter armor, with lighter guns would be just as, or more effective than full on tanks. But IED threat still I guess Tanks offer little to no protection against them either... |
|
This raises the question, what are the tanks going to have written on their exacuators this time?
|
|
I would think the tanks would be good for night time overwatch of the local terrain.
|
|
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. Well, at least the run from Leatherneck to Dwyer would be fun in one! When I went to Dwyer to load some AVLB's on Hett's For 3RD CEB to bring them back to Leatherneck I begged to drive one of them back (The hull, not the Hett!)... they said no... Would'a been sweet |
|
Quoted: Helmand is about as flat as flat can be, Armor might do well there.I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion.. Oh yeah, and fuck cav scouts |
|
Ohhh no! This means we will get our asses kicked because the rooskies used armor and that means armor can't work in Afghanistan [/moron sitting on the sidelines]
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Helmand is about as flat as flat can be, Armor will do well there.
I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion.. Oh yeah, and fuck cav scouts I was further N and E...no need for them there......we love tankers....they're like your retarded younger brother....you love em to death, just don't want to be seen in public with them.. |
|
Quoted:
The Canadians and Danes found their Leopards to be a great asset at delivering long range,precision hate and discontent. That's solid gold sigline material, right there. |
|
Quoted: I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. For whatever reason, the field commanders deemed it necessary to have tanks. It wasn't a decision made by a desk jockey at DC who thought "Hey, you know what would be cool in Afghanistan!? Friggin' tanks!" |
|
Quoted: I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. so the abrams was useless in fallujah, huh? mud brick houses are hardly "hardened facilities" besides, theres the HE round and the canister round. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. so the abrams was useless in fallujah, huh? mud brick houses are hardly "hardened facilities" besides, theres the HE round and the canister round. Plus the AWESOME optics it has, so it can see exactly where the entrenched enemy & firing positions is in an ambush. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. For whatever reason, the field commanders deemed it necessary to have tanks. It wasn't a decision made by a desk jockey at DC who thought "Hey, you know what would be cool in Afghanistan!? Friggin' tanks!" I don't think I'd put any money on that theory... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. so the abrams was useless in fallujah, huh? mud brick houses are hardly "hardened facilities" besides, theres the HE round and the canister round. We are discussing Afghanistan...not Iraq....Iraq had an armor threat. Iraq had large urban areas where tanks would offer protection and the capability to bust buildings. Afghanistan has zero armor threat. Well, not zero, some of the warlords have some old Russian pieces of shit, but an anti armor squad with AT4s and or Javelins could pretty much counter the entire armor threat. Build up areas? Only in places we are 'in control' of where parking M1s on the corners and blowing up housing would be frowned upon. Have you seen any footage of combat in Northern and Eastern A-stan? If not, go to youtube and liveleak, take a look, and tell me how you would implement large armor assets there. |
|
Quoted:
I dont pretend to be a strategist, but I hope these tanks are employed properly. Doesnt the terrain in A-stan make it pretty difficult to get the most out of an Abrams? I mean, I am sure there are areas where they could be productive, but I hope they dont end up as just an easy target for IED's etc. Again, I am a total layman, but IIRC the Soviets didnt fare too well with their tanks. I realize we are simply superior to the Soviets, but the Haji's surely remember the success they had against the commies. I love Abram's almost as much as I love Soldiers and Marines., and I will be praying that they really are the multiplier they can be. Not where the Marines are at, Region Command South-West is good tank country. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. so the abrams was useless in fallujah, huh? mud brick houses are hardly "hardened facilities" besides, theres the HE round and the canister round. Plus the AWESOME optics it has, so it can see exactly where the entrenched enemy is in an ambush. LRSS mounted on a truck or carried on foot can do the exact same thing...with less noise... |
|
Quoted: This raises the question, what are the tanks going to have written on their exacuators this time? I've used: Freakazoid BOHICA My favorite was the platoon that named their tanks after the Four Horseman; Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. Naturally Death was the plow tank and they stenciled Pale Horse on the plow motors. Semper Fi |
|
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. The Brits asked for them several times, the UK government said no. |
|
Quoted:
Have you seen any footage of combat in Northern and Eastern A-stan? If not, go to youtube and liveleak, take a look, and tell me how you would implement large armor assets there. Neither of those RCs have Marines, the Marines have their own RC and it is open country there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you seen any footage of combat in Northern and Eastern A-stan? If not, go to youtube and liveleak, take a look, and tell me how you would implement large armor assets there. Neither of those RCs have Marines, the Marines have their own RC and it is open country there. True enough...but the Army, last I heard, is moving Armor there as well... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. so the abrams was useless in fallujah, huh? mud brick houses are hardly "hardened facilities" besides, theres the HE round and the canister round. Plus the AWESOME optics it has, so it can see exactly where the entrenched enemy is in an ambush. Not to start any shit here () but, an RG' with a CROWS or CROWS II with a .50 or even a '240 in it (MK-19's didn't seem to work so good) does just fine (At seein' dudes). I'm an old DAT and I love the M-1 but I'm with Sylvan on this one....it'll be interesting to see how they're used and what sorts of restrictions will be placed on them. They're not about to just cut these kids loose to start throwing HEAT (Or M-PAT or cannister) rounds down-range in Helmand. Our TF got into a full-on "blood-feud" with the local taliban (Kandahar chapter) over some civilian deaths last spring and WE were only using .50's. Anyway, hopefully they'll use them to good effect. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I sure hope this will make a difference. Me too. +1 I hope they can avoid the IED's! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. The Brits asked for them several times, the UK government said no. Didn't know that. I hope I am wrong. But if I thought I was wrong, then I wouldn't be saying it. From my viewpoint, we have good armor and firepower and are lacking mobility. The one place the M1 doesn't help. If this is just a gas guzzling LRAS, then we might be doing it wrong. I heard on ARFCOM that the original request came from a marine armor captain. |
|
No fun to be on the receiving end of a DU round.
Quoted:
well, that will just be one of the occupational hazards, but you are right.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I sure hope this will make a difference. Me too. +1 I hope they can avoid the IED's! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This raises the question, what are the tanks going to have written on their exacuators this time? I've used: Freakazoid BOHICA My favorite was the platoon that named their tanks after the Four Horseman; Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. Naturally Death was the plow tank and they stenciled Pale Horse on the plow motors. Semper Fi We had a platoon from I believe 1st tanks with us (RCT-1 2003), my favorite was "Big Bahgdaddy", there was a bunch of other cool ones. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know where the stories of Canadian and Danish success are coming from. largely immobile gas guzzlers that threw track a lot. Brits have had troops in Helmand for quite a while and saw no use for tanks. Personal opinion is this is a PR stunt by the marine armor community. At 400 dollars a gallon (the current bull shit estimation), the M1 is an expensive solution to a problem I am not sure has been defined. Do we need the armor? The ISR capabilities? The stablized co-ax? The main gun? Tanks are designed to do two things. Destroy hardened facilities in the assault and destroy other tanks. taliban have neither. Lets hope this is a game changer. what we are lacking now is mobility. Tanks are going the wrong direction with this. The Brits asked for them several times, the UK government said no. Didn't know that. I hope I am wrong. But if I thought I was wrong, then I wouldn't be saying it. From my viewpoint, we have good armor and firepower and are lacking mobility. The one place the M1 doesn't help. If this is just a gas guzzling LRAS, then we might be doing it wrong. I heard on ARFCOM that the original request came from a marine armor captain. We might be on to something here....does the Marine Corps offer a separate award that offers promotion points to tankers in combat? Or did he get tired of walking? |
|
I believe our tankers will be every bit as successful as our LAV's. Especially with lessons learned from Iraq, hopefully they have good retention of OIF vets.
|
|
Quoted: Plus the AWESOME optics it has, so it can see exactly where the entrenched enemy & firing positions is in an ambush. The video is a bit shitty, but those look like M1A1s. AFAIK, that's all the Marines have either way. I don't see the 10x optics being a game changer...maybe if they were getting M1A2SEPs, but those are too busy sitting on FOBs in Iraq and motorpools in CONUS. |
|
Quoted:
Pls post some pics for us at ARFCOM if you can.
i will be there in three weeks....maybe i will get up close and personal and check them out, if allowed GO DEVIL DOGS!! |
|
Quoted: I believe our tankers will be every bit as successful as our LAV's. Especially with lessons learned from Iraq, hopefully they have good retention of OIF vets. Roger that. Too often, battlefield assets are viewed as logistical +/- to commanders. Tanks often are attached to parent companies whose CO's have little to no experience in properly utilizing armor. Armor is such a force multiplier that really proves itself on a two-way range. Light armor(LAVs) and mechanized infantry love to get into a pissing match with tanks about how they(LAVs, mech.) can do everything tanks can do but faster and cheaper. There's NO comparison off-road. There was an attempt in the '90s to bring tanks to OCS at Quantico to teach new officers how to properly integrate armor into their battle plan. The plan was unfortunately scrubbed for reasons unknown to me. -biased former Marine tanker C co 2d tk bn |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Helmand is about as flat as flat can be, Armor might do well there.
I just don't understand what the constellations hope to accomplish with heavy Armor in A-stan...waaaay above my pay grade, but we stuck with our good ole fashioned LPCs and trucks on occasion.. Oh yeah, and fuck cav scouts 19series..just tanker bitches.......... |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.