LEATHERNECK, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines
with Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (Forward),
fires the main cannon of an M1A1 Abrams tank during a range at Camp
Leatherneck, Jan. 13, 2011. The Marines are the first tank unit to
deploy to Afghanistan.(Official US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Ned
Johnson)
LEATHERNECK, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines
with Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (Forward),
fires the main cannon of an M1A1 Abrams tank during a range at Camp
Leatherneck, Jan. 13, 2011. The Marines fired multiple rounds to align
their sights and prepare their tanks for upcoming missions. (Official US
Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Daniel Blatter)
LEATHERNECK, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines
with Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion 1st Marine Division (Forward),
work with a bore laser to find the center of the M1A1 Abrams tank gun’s
barrel during a battlefield zero range at Camp Leatherneck, Jan. 13,
2011. The Marines aligned their sights and fired the main gun during a
range to prepare the tanks for upcoming missions. (Official US Marine
Corps photo by Cpl. Ned Johnson)
LEATHERNECK, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines
with Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (Forward),
attach a .50 caliber machine gun to the top of an M1A1 Abrams tank
before a range at Camp Leatherneck, Jan. 13, 2011. The Marines performed
their pre-combat inspections before firing the weapons to prepare for
upcoming missions.(Official US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Ned Johnson)
Now this is how you fight a COIN war; never fight the way your enemy fights best. So if the Talibs come toting AKs, the USMC should be riding M-1s.
ReplyDeleteFunny how COIN so often seems to mean ceding the firepower advantage to the enemy in the minds or at least decision's of politicians and some 'thinktanks'... I've never understood why better protection for for troops AND their citizens is a bad thing? Yet that is mostly what the MBT provides in a COIN situation. Of course the firepower and mobility is nice, but it is the virtual invulnerability to a light insurgent force that makes a tank so valuable in such a scenario. They simply CANNOT fight it under the majority of circumstances and a LOT of the time it should be considered a less than lethal use of force by those who care about such terminology, because the enemy is forced to flee, without engaging it mostly, because they know it represents almost certain defeat in the immediate tactical scenario.
ReplyDeleteOf course it needs to be used with precision and discretion, but then so does a laser guided bomb, or even a belt-fed machine gun. All have tremendous life taking power, but tanks always seem to be a no-no as if it is a bad thing for us to be seen to be serious about fighting the war...
God I hope the USMC roll an M1A1 past an Australian politician in Afghanistan soon... The same politicians who were told by our Chief of the Defence force, that tanks are unsuitable for the Afghanistan environment in fact. But what can you expect when you see an Airman as the overalll chief of the defence force? The Air Force and Navy have long been opposed to the Australian Army mantaining a man battle tank capability.
I can quite honestly quote a Senior RAN officer who once wrote and I quote, 'tanks up the guts never won any staff college debates I was ever involved in...' Well, er maybe you should include REAL history in your little desktop exercises instead of the make believe history you obviously indulge in...
MBT's have been the dominant platform in land battles since the 'tank' (so named in an attempt to mislead the Germans as to it's true purpose) was first invented and they remain the platform of choice whenever REAL fighting is encountered, especially in the urban 'close combat' terrain you find such a difficult environment...
Light armour is exactly that. Light and vulnerable. Those who ACTUALLY fight in close urban quarters regularly abdjure light armour. The Israelis with their NAMER IFV's have shown the way forward if such fighting is going to be continued in the longer term.
Australia IMHO should be following in their footsteps, dusting off the remaining Leo 1 tanks, junking the turrets and converting the hulls to an IFV platform with bolt on applique armour and an off the shelf remote weapon station, such as the Konsberg Protector as used on our ASLAV's (giving us Thermal Imaging, passive NVG, laser range finding and rapid shot placement capabilities as well) for a 12.7mm weapon or a 40mm auto grenade launcher. We could muster up enough Leo 1 hulls to provide a company or two worth of IFV's and we'd have a serious close combat capability in combination with our M1A1's and the armoured bulldozers we are buying...
The Staff Colleges would probably hate it, but it is curious how they don't seem to mind at all the idea of putting Digs in harm's way in lightly protected vehicles or vehicles with NO protection but shudder at the very thought of protecting them AND a civilian population better...
I guess they don't really care to comprehend the realities of war. "Just drop a PGM on that fellow's head from 40k's away, the locals will love us and we'll be home in time for tea, biscuits and the obligatory Distinguished Conduct awards for those of the rank of Major and above! Huzzah!!!"
If only...
The first United States tank unit in Afghanistan...
The Canadians and the Dutch might beg to differ on
Is that snorkel attachment standard to USMC Abrams? Or something special for A'stan?
ReplyDelete"The Canadians and the DANISH might beg to differ"
ReplyDeleteThe attachment is standard to USMC M-1s. Apparently a b*tch to remove, so they didn't bother.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Danes brought their Leos along; the Dutch brought big a$$ PzH-2000s howitzers instead, among other things.
Aussie Digger - let's not forget that the A'Stan war is being sold in many countries not as real war - COIN or otherwise - but as a 'reconstruction' mission. Heavy armor conflicts with the perceived image of troops building schools and digging water wells.
Which was the reason the Dutch weren't allowed to bring their Leo2s (trust me, we begged for them) but instead we were allowed to bring along the aforementioned PzH-2000 SPGs, F-16s and Apaches, go figure...
whoa guys.
ReplyDeletei never said that the US Marines were the first to Afghanistan with tanks.
where are you guys getting that from?
Thats my husband<3
ReplyDeleteAWESOME!
ReplyDeleteI wish you both the best!
Stay strong and I know he will be well!
Take Care,
Solomon
i was 1st tanks, korea . 53 / be safe ,, kick ass / come home
ReplyDeletecredcoat
Delta Dad,
ReplyDeleteMy son is one those marines,radio comm. and first reponse team,that are laying the ground work for the rest of the divisions that will follow. They have left Camp Leatherneck and as a unit are seeing action for the first time. So far all is well.Keep those willing to give their lives in prayer..Thanks
Delta Dad too,
ReplyDeleteMy son is also one of those marines on that same mission.I'm so proud of are marines!Keep them in your prayers.God bless
My husband is on one of those tanks :) I'm so proud of them all!!
ReplyDeleteWont hear about how the tanks are doing over there until after April. Aways thinking about you guys! Keep them in your thoughts...
its funny i did not even realize all this while that there were no tank units over there....wow its amazing when u have something this useful and u dont make use of it. To the autralian politician i think he'll put his tail behind his legs and resign now...lol
ReplyDelete