National Security

Here Come The Tanks

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | November 19, 2010 | +

Eyebrow-raising piece in the Washington Post this morning reporting that the U.S. Marines are dispatching 16 M-1 tanks to southwestern Afghanistan. The 68-ton behemoths can hurl a 120mm shell a mile downrange to blow up pretty much anything. It’s the first time such heavy armor is being sent to Afghanistan.

A Marine M-1 tank in Iraq / DoD photo

This raises a couple of interesting issues: just what do the Taliban and their allies have that requires this kind of firepower? Last month the U.S. and its allies dropped, fired or shot a total of 1,000 bombs and missiles on targets inside Afghanistan — the highest number since the war began nine years ago. Just what are those tanks going to be able to hit that allied warplanes haven’t been capable of destroying? An officer quoted in the Post piece says that tanks can fire on a target much more quickly than a warplane can be called in to attack a target. We’re now in the 10th year of this war; never got the sense that speed was a requirement.

Related Topics: National Security

  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod
    Afghanistan May 16, 2012

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters
    Pacific May 16, 2012

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images
    Military Mental Health May 16, 2012

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • allthingsinaname

    We’re now in the 10th year of this war; never got the sense that speed was a requirement.
    .
    Say what?

  • GivenUp

    Tanks have the great advantage of being highly resistant to roadside bombs and other such weapons. Also, the speed with which one can hit a target often does matter as insurgents can and will melt away after a short time, sometimes too short to bring aircraft to bear, especially with the amount of clearance required to avoid civilian casualties.

    Tanks provide near invulnerability and the advantage of much more accurate fire than aircraft can provide. I’m honestly surprised it took this long.

  • GivenUp

    I think he meant the speed with which firepower can be brought to bear, that’s what makes sense to me

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Mark, I might be alone in this but I’m a little troubled by the way you use language when talking about the military. You’re a good and skeptical journalist but you use some flippant and at times fanboyish language to describe the military, its traditions, strategies and most notably, its weapon systems.

    Example: “The 68-ton behemoths can hurl a 120mm shell a mile downrange to blow up pretty much anything.”

    This seems flip to me. It seems like the kind of copy I’d have read on the Hasbro boxes of GI Joe toys I had as a kid. It turns the weapon into a “gee wow” kind of gadget. But those shells are killing people, as you well know.

    If I’m alone in getting this tone from your work, then it’s possible that I just have a tin ear. But I do think this undermines your work a bit.

  • michaelfury
  • michaelfury

    “It seems like the kind of copy I’d have read on the Hasbro boxes of GI Joe toys I had as a kid. It turns the weapon into a “gee wow” kind of gadget. But those shells are killing people, as you well know”

    Yes, he well knows.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/suffer-the-little-children/

  • indianasteve

    What would be really useful would be interviews with Russian tank commanders who were in Afghanistan as to their tactical and strategic advantages. I only recall photos of destroyed tanks along the roads.
    Pretty exciting stuff for boys with AK 47s to take out tanks. Be interesting to see what they come up with against Abrams. I assume Pakistan will be delivering suitable counter weaponry soon.

  • liberalmeltdown

    You can’t take out a tank with an AK47, unless it’s a tin can.
    .
    Reasons for tanks are speed, fire power, and armor. That’s one impressive machine. Hopefully it is there to kill the enemy.
    .
    Although, if the article about what Afghans are thinking is correct. It should be firing brochures listing the reasons why NATO and the US are in country.

  • chupkar

    Hasn’t there previously been an issue about sand and tanks? Maybe that was resolved.Maybe I dreamed it was an issue?

  • Art Pepper

    This worked out well for the Soviets, too.

  • GivenUp

    can’t imagine it was, we invaded Kuwait with tanks after all

  • corsair321

    The Canadians have been using tanks in Kanadahar for years. The principal advantage is that they are practically invincible to the weapons typically arrayed against NATO forces.

  • http://briskfeetinn.wordpress.com briskfeetinn

    brands 50% save

    you must not miss it!!

    http://www.briskfeetinn.com

  • lokhupbafa

    You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia”
    ***
    I question the military education of folks who brought us the Afghanistan evasion – oh that’s right we are American’s facts do not stand in our way.

  • squirmz

    You can’t take them out with AK-47s, but you can cripple them with RPGs (Rocket propelled Grenade). Those are something the Afghans have plenty of.

blog comments powered by Disqus