Utility of tanks in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'RAC' started by Muff_Coupling, Jan 4, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The following extract taken from an article in todays Sunday Times about the recent major allied offensive in Afghanistan which involved the use of Danish Leopards.

    Sunday Times Link

    Whilst aware that this subject has been done before (Link) it would seem to me that there is a very real case for the powers that be to reconsider the British decision not to deploy CR2 to the country given that it appears we are relying on other nations to provide heavy A support to our own troops.
  2. more succeptable i assume, all comes down to money and spares also, kind unsustainable when TELIC is still ongoing

    I know its a kind of hearts and minds scenario to win over the local populous, I dont think that could be achieved if a beast of war is trundling through the village.

    Lots of dead russian tanks there still which tells a story
  3. I would doubt that the number of tanks in Iraq has been a particular consideration when it comes to sending them to Afghanistan because the number in theatre at the moment is not particularly large.

    Caveating what follows with the fact that I have not served in Afg my understanding of the current situation in Afghanistan is that the people are afraid of the the Taliban - if tanks can be used to improve the security situation then that will surely serve to go a long way to winning "hearts and minds".

    As to the Russian tanks - I am not sure that you can really make the same the comparison as there are all sorts of variables to consider - different armour, different AT weapons, different terrain etc.
  4. I made the comparrison as a lot of their tanks were destroyed, dare I say it since the soviet war a lot of anti tank tactics and ied advancement have been made., to be fair apart from the odd operation, and the logistic of low loading them to the area what can they achieve that a warrior or cvrt cant?
  5. They can put a 120mm HE round through a house from 1500m away and are a lot more protected against IEDs and Atk weapons - and in my experience they tend to attract fire away from less armoured targets (such as infantrymen, warrior and CVR(T).

    In addition the point of me posting the original article was to draw attention to the fact that the CSS implications of deploying armour are not insurmountable - indeed as a poster in the "are tanks finished" thread pointed out (although I cannot confirm or deny) we already low load the Danish Leopards.

    I am not so stupid as to neglect the other considerations such as bridge classifications and other terrain restrictions but it does seem to me that there is a strong case for the deployment of CR2.
  6. Javelin missile system just as effective, and cheaper than a large target tank
  7. Oh.

    I didn't realise that Javelin systems could travel cross-country at thirty miles per hour and were bulletproof.
  8. wow where did i mention that?

    I am just saying that its easier and cheaper to transport that system to use, but hey take the CR2 out there, put another equipment in place which need spares, mechanics, logistics, etc

    I am sure our economy and defence budget can handle it
  9. Well, your comment was that a Javelin system was just as effective as a tank.

    Since you didn't limit it in any way, I assumed you meant in all aspects, Firepower, Mobility and Protection.
  10. it was in response to the post above and the effectiveness of the 120mm tank round
  11. Which also referenced protection and other advantages of armoured vehicles.
  12. All the pro and cons stated must have been factored and dealt with by other nations that have deployed heavy armour across there, so this should not stop British Forces.

    The answer maybe more to do with doctrine.

    Unlike the lack of helicopter support, there does not seem to be too many people whinging about lack of heavy armour.
  13. However as time drags on, i expect that the doctrine will change, and heavy armour, though certainly no more than a squadron will appear(to allow for downtime from repairs).

    The majority of soviet tank losses occured in the mountains, a lot of the time due to their inability to provide any cover, to their ground forces. Interesting to note, in some cases Afghans would ignore the tanks, as they could be taken out later. Though again this was the mountains.
  14. This could always be due to the fact that the RAC has failed to elucidate exacty what capabilities a CR2 could bring to that particular theatre coupled with the fact that the main source of troops used for Afg are light role infantry with little or no experience of working with heavy armour.
  15. Wrong on both counts.