Afghanistan

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's because he learned in Iraq, he can only form alliances with, and garner support from, people that believe he's the baddest motherfucker in town.

A tank is no different than a chopper or an armored humvee to an insurgent. Insurgency never stick around for a frontal attack. And never do frontal attacks. The tank is a minor asset in the soldier’s arsenal. And too many who do not get the bigger picture will hype the tank as if it will solve everything.

Tanks on this battlefield are nothing more than a mobile artillery piece. Instead, one should be first defining the strategic objectives in this war. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? And what is the method (defined by fundamental military doctrine even 2000 years ago) being used to accomplish that objective?

Tanks do not do that. Tanks simply make it easier (in some cases) for other assets to accomplish more important goals. To many are making a big deal about a deployment that is not significant in this type of battlefield.

[fo0hzy]

Originally Posted by tw

The tank is a minor asset in the soldier’s arsenal.

Say what, Willis?

You cannot be serious.

[xoxoxoBruce]

...they will provide the Marines with an important new tool in missions to flush out pockets of insurgent fighters. A tank round is far more accurate than firing artillery, and it can be launched much faster than having to wait for a fighter jet or a helicopter to shoot a missile or drop a satellite-guided bomb.

"Tanks give you immediate, protected firepower and mobility to address a threat that's beyond the range" of machine guns that are mounted on the mine-resistant trucks that most U.S. troops use in Afghanistan,...

The grunts that are looking at the "Big Picture", instead of their fire zone, end up dead.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by fo0hzy

Say what, Willis?

You cannot be serious.

Depends on the kind of war.

For fighting the Nazis in Normandy, or Saddam's republican guards, tanks are great.

For fighting guerrillas inside a town full of people who you hope to win over, you need accurate information and brave grunts to go and shoot the enemy.

Afghanistan is a mix of both types, I'd say, but more of the latter.

[tw]

Originally Posted by fo0hzy

You cannot be serious.

Very serious. And some think otherwise only because a big tank inspires a big penis. Emotions do not create reality or facts.

Others who better understand these concept understand why tanks were so necessary in Normandy or in Desert Storm. But have minor value in Afghanistan.

Far more important - by hundreds or thousands of percent more valuable - are choppers. And a weapon that the Brits wanted more than anything provided by the UK - A10s.

As you should know, in WWII, tanks were not as important as many would hype. The Army with the shittiest tanks won the war. Because that nation had other more important assets.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Very serious. And some think otherwise only because a big tank inspires a big penis. Emotions do not create reality or facts.

Others who better understand these concept understand why tanks were so necessary in Normandy or in Desert Storm. But have minor value in Afghanistan.

Uh no. Tell it to Petraeus.