Tanks in A-stan

[Old Tanker]

From what I've gathered the Canadian tanks are doing an excellent job in A-stan.

 

What are the possibilties the U.S. Army will notice and do like wise ?

How about other NATO nations ?

[Catalan]

IIRC, Denmark is preparing to deploy a number of Leopard 2A5s to the theater.

[PONGO_7409]

you might get a kick from this Canuck view of the story.

 

Excellent camo job being proposed by the Danes.

 

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/04/stunning...ion-of-war.html

[Hellfish6]

IIRC, Denmark is preparing to deploy a number of Leopard 2A5s to the theater.

 

As I understand it, they're on standby. I don't know if it's a guaranteed deployment.

 

Would the M1 series of tanks be appropriate for the theater? I don't know the weight differences vs. a Leo2A6M or Leo1C2 offhand, but I'd think an M1 might be too heavy and too much of a fuel hog to be really useful.

 

Maybe the US could deploy a couple MGSes instead? I'm still not a fan of anything that only carries 18 rounds, but I'd think it'd be a little more versatile than an M1 for infantry fire support.

[Scott Cunningham]

18 rounds is plenty for what they are doing. A huge crate of 7.62 and .50 is what they would really be using.

[Hellfish6]

And I'm still not a fan of anything that only carries 18 rounds of anything.

[Old Tanker]

Would the M1 series of tanks be appropriate for the theater? I don't know the weight differences vs. a Leo2A6M or Leo1C2 offhand, but I'd think an M1 might be too heavy and too much of a fuel hog to be really useful.

Ah , you dug up the airborne and SF generals arguement from 1965 in VN. Good research !

[Hellfish6]

Ah , you dug up the airborne and SF generals arguement from 1965 in VN. Good research !

 

Did we need M103s in Vietnam?

[Old Tanker]

Did we need M103s in Vietnam?

 

I believe the commander of the 25th ID argued he wanted to take his div. tk. bn. to VN when his div. was deployed.

He was told no . He insisted and was finally allowed. His tk. bn. took M-48A3s as that was the CONUS standard first line MBT.

He also had his cav. sqdrn turn in it's M-41s for M-48A3s. The Army at that point didn't have any M-103s.

 

What was the issue with the div. cmdr was he needed tanks but didn't want M-41s but was O.K. with M-48s.

The M-113 and the M-41 were considered to light for direct assaults on dugin and bunkered NVA.

The M-48A3 was the theater MBT as is the M-1 today.

M-60s and Jarhead M-103s were specificially designated for the Soviet Horde at that point in time.

[Hellfish6]

I believe the commander of the 25th ID argued he wanted to take his div. tk. bn. to VN when his div. was deployed.

He was told no . He insisted and was finally allowed. His tk. bn. took M-48A3s as that was the CONUS standard first line MBT.

He also had his cav. sqdrn turn in it's M-41s for M-48A3s. The Army at that point didn't have any M-103s.

 

What was the issue with the div. cmdr was he needed tanks but didn't want M-41s but was O.K. with M-48s.

The M-113 and the M-41 were considered to light for direct assaults on dugin and bunkered NVA.

The M-48A3 was the theater MBT as is the M-1 today.

M-60s and Jarhead M-103s were specificially designated for the Soviet Horde at that point in time.

 

I'm not saying that tanks are unpractical in Afghanistan. I'm saying the M1, though it is our only choice, might not be a great one. I brought up the M103, because it's the only tank of the era comparable to the M1 (weight, weaponry, logistical tail). We had 4 tanks to chose from in '65. Today we have one.

 

The M-48A3 was, arguably, a good tank in regards to infantry support. Is the M1? Is the M1 worth the logistical tail? Does the US need a tank in Afghanistan?

 

I'm not making statements, I'm asking questions. There might very well be a great case for deploying a battalion or company or platoon, but I haven't seen one. Just saying that the Canadians are enjoying the success of their tanks doesn't make a good argument per se. I bet the Canadians are enjoying the American Apache helicopters too, but they're not rushing out to buy and deploy their own.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Hellfish6

[Old Tanker]

The M-48A3 was, arguably, a good tank in regards to infantry support. Is the M1? Is the M1 worth the logistical tail? Does the US need a tank in Afghanistan?

 

Well then my recommendation would be to deploy a platoon or company and find out !

 

What tanks give you are massive direct firepower immediately available where deployed. Weather and que considerations are not a factor.

We purposely build stronghold bases to entice the enemy to attack or to launch sweeps and pursuits , tanks available immediately ar 2 A.M. is a nice Ace up your sleeve better than waiting :30 minutes for a AC-130. . But still have the availability of an AC-130 on call. Use all the tools you can get short of nukes.

[DemolitionMan]

The Leo2A6M that will be used by Canada weighs about 63t. So weight should not be an issue when talking about deploying M1s to Astan.

[Hellfish6]

Well then my recommendation would be to deploy a platoon or company and find out !

 

What tanks give you are massive direct firepower immediately available where deployed. Weather and que considerations are not a factor.

We purposely build stronghold bases to entice the enemy to attack or to launch sweeps and pursuits , tanks available immediately ar 2 A.M. is a nice Ace up your sleeve better than waiting :30 minutes for a AC-130. . But still have the availability of an AC-130 on call. Use all the tools you can get short of nukes.

 

Has anybody asked for them?

[Claudio_1]

The Leo2A6M that will be used by Canada weighs about 63t. So weight should not be an issue when talking about deploying M1s to Astan.

 

 

Weight might not be the problem, but what about ammunition? How many more years does it take to develop 120 mm HE and would it terrible destroy pride to buy German or Israeli 120 mm HE?

 

 

Claudio

[Colin]

Well once the the US leaves Iraq they can drop off another 40,000 soldiers and 100 M1 in the Afghanistan, plus the Brits can then bring in a few thousand more troops. Should help.

 

I hear the Danes are planning 5 tanks to support their guys in Helmand

 

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/...leaping-in.html

[Scott Cunningham]

A Stryker MGS would probably be fairly useful in A-Stan. It overmatch against anything it might encounter, and its wheeled design is a hell of a lot more suitable to the long distances involved over there. Better to have a tank nearby than one in a motor pool 40km away.

[jaro]

A Stryker MGS would probably be fairly useful in A-Stan. It overmatch against anything it might encounter, and its wheeled design is a hell of a lot more suitable to the long distances involved over there. Better to have a tank nearby than one in a motor pool 40km away.

 

Sorry Scott,but i dont think that anything that needs stop before shooting will be usefull... good tracked tank is something that is not replacable by bus with gun...I still dont understand why they choosed MGS over XM8 with 120mm...

[Visitor]

Sorry Scott,but i dont think that anything that needs stop before shooting will be usefull... good tracked tank is something that is not replacable by bus with gun...I still dont understand why they choosed MGS over XM8 with 120mm...

 

I you want a good tracked tank, then why are you suggesting an M8? Once you've put on the armor proof against light cannon and the ERA, you're in the 50 ton weight range. You might as well go the extra way for an M1.

 

Or, swap the cannon for a 35mm gun backed up by two TOWs, and go for the lighter M2. You even get some infantry transport.

 

If you're trying for fuel and other logistics support savings, go for the MGS.

 

A few other things you missed:

* Its an M8, and not an XM8.

* The M8 has a 105 mm, just like MGS. Sometime after the project was cancelled, the vehicle builder (either UDLP or BAE) then made a 120 mm variant. That one hasn't gotten far enough to get an "XM#".

* Yes, the Stryker MGS can fire on the move. Just look for any of the on-line videos of the vehicle.

[Zipperhead]

A Stryker MGS would probably be fairly useful in A-Stan. It overmatch against anything it might encounter, and its wheeled design is a hell of a lot more suitable to the long distances involved over there. Better to have a tank nearby than one in a motor pool 40km away.

 

 

Our LAV's are having a hell of a time with irrigation ditches in Afgh, (basically they canalize our AFV's) the Tanks do not have the same problem, Strikers would.

 

Besides has that POS been made to work properly yet? Fire on the move, over the side, adequate ammo upload, CC/Gnr situational awareness? Anyone? Buehler?

[Argus]

Well if the wisper I'm hearing out of Canberra has any substance to it, we might well see Aust M1's deployed at some point in the not too distant future - with A'stan as the current tip. I suspect it would depend on the outcome of the next election apart fro anything else, but even if Labour win.. well pulling out of Iraq would make the domestic political statement Rudd would need, while ramping up in Afghanistan at the same time ticks the boxes and retains/gains him WOT cred, so balancing domestic with international politics.

 

On a related note Russel Hill is looking at Pz2000's, from the Dutch apparently, they had one up there the other week for a bit of show and tell.

 

shane

[Smitty]

Sorry Scott,but i dont think that anything that needs stop before shooting will be usefull... good tracked tank is something that is not replacable by bus with gun...I still dont understand why they choosed MGS over XM8 with 120mm...

 

MGS can fire on the move IIRC. At least I've seen videos of this.

 

MGS was chosen because the Army wanted a common platform for Stryker Brigades.

[PONGO_7409]

Denmark is stepping in . . . .

 

 

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-leopard-2a5-denmark.htm

[Michael Dekmetzian]

Well if the wisper I'm hearing out of Canberra has any substance to it, we might well see Aust M1's deployed at some point in the not too distant future - with A'stan as the current tip. I suspect it would depend on the outcome of the next election apart fro anything else, but even if Labour win.. well pulling out of Iraq would make the domestic political statement Rudd would need, while ramping up in Afghanistan at the same time ticks the boxes and retains/gains him WOT cred, so balancing domestic with international politics.

 

On a related note Russel Hill is looking at Pz2000's, from the Dutch apparently, they had one up there the other week for a bit of show and tell.

 

shane

 

Interesting shane Was aware of the PZh2000 possibility, apparently being thought of as a 'you buy bushmaster, we'll buy pzh2000' type of deal.. Would be a good one

[Argus]

Interesting shane Was aware of the PZh2000 possibility, apparently being thought of as a 'you buy bushmaster, we'll buy pzh2000' type of deal.. Would be a good one

 

Yeah that was my first thought too, but then the Dutch seem to be having a bit of a clearance sale at present, so I'd say its a bit of both. Still its all a ruddy mess isn't it? Taken as individual cases the M1 buy and Pz2000 both make perfectly good sense, but we end up running three different heavy tracked chassis, where Leo 2 would have ment two if not one (not sure how much commanality there is between Pz2000 and Leo).

 

Interoperability with the US is a noble goal but I fear it is undermining our ability to support heavy armour in toto. There's no easy out here either, I'm not saying its culpable stupidity, although the opposition will no doubt call it as such (if the they even see the problem) as picking up the M109 doesn't change the basic picture on an automatove level. But I just can't help thinking we'd have been better off with a semi-incompatable Leo based force we could afford to support than a semi-compatable force that ends up breaking the bank and sees the RAAC price itself out of the market.

 

shane

Edited May 4, 2007 by Argus

[Coldsteel]

Yeah that was my first thought too, but then the Dutch seem to be having a bit of a clearance sale at present, so I'd say its a bit of both. Still its all a ruddy mess isn't it? Taken as individual cases the M1 buy and Pz2000 both make perfectly good sense, but we end up running three different heavy tracked chassis, where Leo 2 would have ment two if not one (not sure how much commanality there is between Pz2000 and Leo).

Wouldn't it be 4 different chassis? Or are the Leo bridge layers going too, and with them the RAAC's mobile bridging capability?

 

On a side note there are some pics floating around of the Dutch PzH 2000 at the Avalon airshow. It's a big bastard.