November 19, 2010

Heavy Metal Moves to the 'Stan

There is a steady escalation of force occurring in Afghanistan, though it seems few in this country realize the pressure being brought to bear. The volume of precision air-delivered munitions has been steadily increasing. The Army has now brought in a handful of futuristic XM25 25mm grenade launchers for field (combat) testing, and if they perform as well as hoped, additional XM25s are assured for wider deployment. On top of that, the Army is introducing a company of M1 Abrams main battle tanks to the conflict for the first time in the nice-year war, with the goal of using the 120mm main gun to crack open Taliban safe houses and fighting positions.

The Abrams will likely excel in Afghanistan as it has in the other environments in which it has been used, but the mil-geek in me wonders if the Stryker-variants armed with 120mm mortars (which have seen use in Iraq, but I don't know about Afghanistan) or the 105mm Mobile Gun variant (still in testing?) wouldn't be a better option for many Afghan missions because of their relative stealth and mobility advantages.

In any event, it appears the Taliban are in for a vicious fight.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 19, 2010 09:52 AM

What's typical here is the NIH mindset of the US military. There are several wheeled 120mm motor-gun vehicles on the market. These would be far better in that environment. Heck pick up the Finish version that has TWO guns in the turrent. As well, precision munitions are available for the guns in that caliber.

Posted by: emdfl at November 19, 2010 10:28 AM

I seem to recall Soviet tanks being sitting ducks back in the day. I hope they're not planning on using them in the countryside.

Posted by: Kevin at November 19, 2010 10:49 AM

Two things:

1-it's the Marines, not the Army.

2-the Canadians have had tanks in Afghanistan for years. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't lost any.

120mm cannons are very useful for making holes in meter-thick adobe walls.

CJTF-82 Staff

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at November 19, 2010 12:35 PM

With no offense intended to emdfl,

gimme the main gun!!!

Posted by: Gus Bailey at November 19, 2010 01:19 PM

I love it....We got the stick....And I am all for pounding the bleep out of them where ever we find them...Soviet tanks of that era were ill prepared and the Soviets combat strategies were far less flexible than ours are....Our commanders will likely not be so stupid as to use them in mountains so much but there is a huge plain area were tanks are far better suited where there is much fighting. If they did decide to use them in the mountains the M1 which is hugely well armored would be the best possible weapon to bring to bear....

If they've decided to bring the mortar version of the stryker into is or will see less use I am thinking.... It's mobility and design is for plasticized battle fronts mainly. It's ability to bring indirect firepower accurately and instantly is awesome. I do love that my fellow Finns have built what may be the best of these mobile mortars systems in the world and I hate it that we have opted to purchase some foreign design for mobile infantry but never the less the stryker 120 mobile mortar system is an excellent build.

I love the idea of the 105 mobile gun system but my main problem with it; the armor on it makes it less survivable in my opinion than the Abrams, especially in this asymmetric war we are currently fighting. It is best suited for mobile infantry on the attack and less suited for occupational duties. The Abrams because of it's speed, maneuverability, firepower, and armor second to none, is more versatile. In this case I see an excellent use for forward basing the 105 mobile gun system in the mountainous regions, where the superior optics and targeting make it an excellent; I think, weapon for counter fire against the harrassing attacks favored by the gueralla's, which are almost always using line of sight fighting tactics....

Almost always in guerrilla warfare the enemy in the field gets off the first shot. To win those fights you must be able to absorb the first blow and return a fire so punishing as to make it nearly completely nearly completely disadvangageous to attack.

I would like to see drones available for every single patrol that goes out to help keep an eye on their flanks... ambushing ambushers is the best defense against ambushes. I like the ramp up in interdictive drone strikes....It's about time.... Be cool to see 24/7 layered predator and super predator flights covering one hundred percent of the Afghany border. No compromise I game in my head will do.

In the case of a people who are bent on suicide like Muslim mujaheddin surviving an initial attack and then killing them off in the counter response is key to winning victory. It demoralizes them and shows them that God is not on their side. They will quit when they realize that for the time being either tactically; or in the case I am referring to strategically, to put off for another day the fight against us infidels is God's will.

In fact they may be beginning to realize that a direct military invasion of the US is the only solution to their problems... By their Koran the only proper use of Jihad. Direct frontal assault of the strongholds of the infidels. That be us; the United States of America. Fortunately for you and me they don't have the logistical transport and support system to do that with but I know that will change.

Posted by: ron at November 19, 2010 01:43 PM

Nothing else, absolutely nothing else, says, "Don't f*** with me." as well.

Posted by: Mike at November 19, 2010 02:39 PM

wildfox sale

Posted by: wildfox sale at December 11, 2010 07:20 PM