NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like Canada is about to deply its Leopard tanks overseas for the first time in quite awhile. Let's see how the Taliban like it when NATO starts fighting for real.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-isaf-armour2.htm

Now if the boys in the Pentagon would pull their heads out of their asses and deploy some real US armor to Afghanistan, we could make some progress.

I hope the warlords don't take this the wrong way otherwise were well and truly fucked

I hope the warlords don't take this the wrong way otherwise were well and truly fucked

If you have armored vehicles then the Afghan warlords can be easily dealt with. Canada already has AFVs deployed, but thier LAV IIIs lack the firepower for certain missions and given that they have backed of plans to buy the Stryker MGS (which some say may never enter production) the Leo is their only choice for direct fire support. Now the US needs a few companies of Bradleys and a few Abrams platoons (it may be a gas hog, but there is no more lethal ground vehicle on the planet) and we can get serious about killing off the Taliban for good.

It's good that Canada (and Poland) are serious about Afghanistan, because the US sure isn't.

As long as these armored vehicles can actually navigate the terrain I say its about time. Afghanistan is only the mess it is because of lack of manpower and equiptment to do the job.

It's good that Canada (and Poland) are serious about Afghanistan, because the US sure isn't.

ahahaha. unfortunatley its true about the governemnt the Bush administration but take this anyway:upyours:

If you have armored vehicles then the Afghan warlords can be easily dealt with.

that’s what the Soviet Union said...

it may be a gas hog, but there is no more lethal ground vehicle on the planet

actually the British challenger is slightly superior don't forget it

and we can get serious about killing off the Taliban for good.

so your going to use tanks on well prepared defensive areas full of booby traps and ambushes with little civilian support

that’s what the Soviet Union said...

The resistence against the Soviets was much greater then it currently is against the U.S.

The resistence against the Soviets was much greater then it currently is against the U.S.

lol ya becaue we gave them the guns who do they have now to suply them with weapons that can take on a world power now. oh ya no one.

lol ya becaue we gave them the guns who do they have now to suply them with weapons that can take on a world power now. oh ya no one.
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was. Many Pakistanis from the ultra-fundamentalist NWFP province fight for the Taliban too.

The resistence against the Soviets was much greater then it currently is against the U.S.

because they pissed off the warlords...

lol ya becaue we gave them the guns who do they have now to suply them with weapons that can take on a world power now. oh ya no one.

there is still a black-market and plenty of organizations who would like to see the Afghanistan occupation crumble

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was. Many Pakistanis from the ultra-fundamentalist NWFP province fight for the Taliban too.

I doubt Iran would supply the Afghans there isn’t any friendship there at all (religious hatred included) though I’m sure Iran would rather not have a threatening U.S coalition on two borders and if Afghanistan falls the west might leave the middle east alone

It's good that Canada (and Poland) are serious about Afghanistan, because the US sure isn't.

Which is why the US has about as many troops than the rest of ISAF combined deployed right?:rolleyes:

Which is why the US has about as many troops than the rest of ISAF combined deployed right?:rolleyes:

source? I heard Germany does more peacekeeping in Afghanistan than the U.S which is beside the point when you include the fact that the U.S has a far larger army and loves to play the leader so that the rest of the coalition doesn’t have to send as many troops

actually the British challenger is slightly superior don't forget it

I'd be curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion?

that’s what the Soviet Union said...

Except the Soviets had inferior equipment andvirtually no civillian support, NATO is much more popular than the Soviets ever were, and many of the warlords support NATO because it benefits them.


actually the British challenger is slightly superior don't forget it

If you you think being slower is a advantage then yes, otherwise it's very similar. In the type operation you use tanks for in Afghanistan almost any tank can be effective if used properly.


so your going to use tanks on well prepared defensive areas full of booby traps and ambushes with little civilian support

That's what Bradleys full of mechanized infantry are for. Also, if you think tanks can't take on well defended, urban areas read Thunder Run. The main use for tanks in Afghanistan id fire suppot for infantry forces, althoguh the limited elevation of their guns limits their use in mountainous regions.

because they pissed off the warlords...

True, as I understand it, the only reason we have the stability to now is because we paid off a good number of the warlords to not start trouble. And to look the other way on the opium production of course.

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was. Many Pakistanis from the ultra-fundamentalist NWFP province fight for the Taliban too.

True maybe but they are not going to find anything nearly as good as western weapons.

It looks like Canada is about to deply its Leopard tanks overseas for the first time in quite awhile. Let's see how the Taliban like it when NATO starts fighting for real.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-isaf-armour2.htm

Now if the boys in the Pentagon would pull their heads out of their asses and deploy some real US armor to Afghanistan, we could make some progress.Tanks kind of suck in mountainous terrain, they didn't do the soviets much good either.

source? I heard Germany does more peacekeeping in Afghanistan than the U.S which is beside the point when you include the fact that the U.S has a far larger army and loves to play the leader so that the rest of the coalition doesn’t have to send as many troops

http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/gen_intern_geogr/afghanistan_nato_plans_stronger_force_in_afghanistan_nato_to_double_troop_numbers_to_southern_afghan istan_when_it_takes_over_from_u_s_led_force

Especially this:
The U.S. military has increased its force in Afghanistan in recent months from 18,000 to 23,000, with much of its operations focused on the eastern regions that border the tribal areas of Pakistan where Taliban and al-Qaida militants are believed to have bases.

With the NATO force increasing from around 9,000 soldiers to about 17,000 by next month, some U.S. troops are expected to withdraw. The U.S.-led coalition will retain control of the east, but Richards said he hoped that area also would soon come under his command.

Tanks kind of suck in mountainous terrain, they didn't do the soviets much good either.

If used properly tanks can suceed just about anywhere. Obviously you have no need for an entire armored division in Afghanistan but a platoon or two attached to each infantry battalion would bring a huge amount of additional capability to the table.

Well, it shows that they realise the urgency with which something must be done about the situation there.

Although I think that other countries might have been in a position to provide newer and better tanks, but that probably doesn't matter too much, given that the Taliban are hardly gonna get involved in major tank battles.

Like I said yesterday:
Seeing that the German Bundeswehr has called for their SPz Marder 1A5 APCs, I believe it could become interesting very soon.

I'm amazed that the Leopard C2 still uses the 105mm cannon, though.

Like I said yesterday...
Yeah, but the Bundeswehr won't actually fight in the border regions like the Canadians.

There is no way in hell they could afford it, even if they wanted to.

Yeah, but the Bundeswehr won't actually fight in the border regions like the Canadians.

There is no way in hell they could afford it, even if they wanted to.
Oh, I know. I was merely observing the overall call for more armor.

http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/gen_intern_geogr/afghanistan_nato_plans_stronger_force_in_afghanistan_nato_to_double_troop_numbers_to_southern_afghan istan_when_it_takes_over_from_u_s_led_force

Especially this:The U.S. military has increased its force in Afghanistan in recent months from 18,000 to 23,000, with much of its operations focused on the eastern regions that border the tribal areas of Pakistan where Taliban and al-Qaida militants are believed to have bases.

With the NATO force increasing from around 9,000 soldiers to about 17,000 by next month, some U.S. troops are expected to withdraw. The U.S.-led coalition will retain control of the east, but Richards said he hoped that area also would soon come under his command.no-very old source-right now there are 18,500 nato troops in Afganistan, 4,500 Brits, 2,300 Canadians, about 2,000 Germans ...at the moment there are only 1,000 US troops in Afganistan

If you have armored vehicles then the Afghan warlords can be easily dealt with. Canada already has AFVs deployed, but thier LAV IIIs lack the firepower for certain missions and given that they have backed of plans to buy the Stryker MGS (which some say may never enter production) the Leo is their only choice for direct fire support. Now the US needs a few companies of Bradleys and a few Abrams platoons (it may be a gas hog, but there is no more lethal ground vehicle on the planet) and we can get serious about killing off the Taliban for good.


The Soviets deployed armored vehicles to Afghanistan and look what happened to them. Messing with the Afghan warlords isn't quite a good idea.

no-very old source-right now there are 18,500 nato troops in Afganistan, 4,500 Brits, 2,300 Canadians, about 2,000 Germans ...at the moment there are only 1,000 US troops in Afganistan


Correction, there are about 400-1,000 US Troops in the NATO peacekeeping force, however, there are about 18,500-20,000 US Troops in the US Coalition. And BTW, on the border regions where the main fighting is, tanks will help, but planes, and US Army Special Forces, and Brit SAS will do the job much better.

Source- BBC News or you could just google it.

"The Canadians, British and Dutch are bearing much of the burden in the south , and the US forces, also about 20,000-strong" -BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm

The Soviets deployed armored vehicles to Afghanistan and look what happened to them. Messing with the Afghan warlords isn't quite a good idea.lucky for NATO the Warlords are sitting this one out, as long as they can keep their weapons, opium and shpere's of influence they'll stay quiet.

lucky for NATO the Warlords are sitting this one out, as long as they can keep their weapons, opium and shpere's of influence they'll stay quiet.

It's much easier to work with the warlords for now and gradually erode their powerbase and intergrate into the government slowly than to simply try and crush them by force.

no-very old source-right now there are 18,500 nato troops in Afganistan, 4,500 Brits, 2,300 Canadians, about 2,000 Germans ...at the moment there are only 1,000 US troops in Afganistan
2,810 Germans, to be precise.

Linky (http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w3DAoASYGYpp6m-pEQhiVMzNDNDyIGUufrkZ-bqh-UkqrvrR-gX5AbGlHu6KgIAAmG0CI!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQV81STg!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF40036B05B%2FW26BPGC9238INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp )

Like I said yesterday:


I'm amazed that the Leopard C2 still uses the 105mm cannon, though.

The 105 is almost as good as the 120 for types of missions you'd use it for in Afghanistan, it's real shortcoming is in AT work, which there is precious little of in Afghanistan.

no-very old source-right now there are 18,500 nato troops in Afganistan, 4,500 Brits, 2,300 Canadians, about 2,000 Germans ...at the moment there are only 1,000 US troops in Afganistan

Correction, there are about 400-1,000 US Troops in the NATO peacekeeping force, however, there are about 18,500-20,000 US Troops in the US Coalition. And BTW, on the border regions where the main fighting is, tanks will help, but planes, and US Army Special Forces, and Brit SAS will do the job much better.

Source- BBC News or you could just google it.

"The Canadians, British and Dutch are bearing much of the burden in the south , and the US forces, also about 20,000-strong" -BBChttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm

The 105 is almost as good as the 120 for types of missions you'd use it for in Afghanistan, it's real shortcoming is in AT work, which there is precious little of in Afghanistan.to a foot soldier 105 or 120 makes no difference, they will both kill you...the tanks are being brought in not for their firepower but their armour, with tanks they will be able to leave the roads which are loaded with mines...

to a foot soldier 105 or 120 makes no difference, they will both kill you...the tanks are being brought in not for their firepower but their armour, with tanks they will be able to leave the roads which are loaded with mines...

You can already do that with wheeled vhicles like the Coyote or the South African Mamba quite well. The Canadians want the tanks to provide breaching and fire support.

From the article:
What can Leopards do in southern Afghanistan? Their main job would be direct fire support – the Leopard’s main gun is the 105mm L7A3, a weapon able to “mousehole” a mud-brick wall with one shot.

CF officials also mentioned convoy escort duties. As tanks go, the Leopard C2 is very fast. When new, Leopards could hit 65km/h on good roads or about 45 km/h cross-country. But Leopards are anything but new. It remains to be seen whether 28-year-old tanks can run convoy duty. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, Leopards would be imposing. However, the high-velocity gun is their main asset.

Like the self-propelled howitzers, the Leos are heavily armoured, tracked vehicles. But SPs specialize in ‘indirect’, or ‘non-line-of-sight’, fire support (at least at long ranges). By comparison, ‘direct’ fire from high-velocity tank guns is ideal for Panjwaii. Indeed, this was the exact role intended for the CF’s planned Mobile Gun System. But with MGS cancelled, attention turned back to the CF Leopards

The 105 is almost as good as the 120 for types of missions you'd use it for in Afghanistan, it's real shortcoming is in AT work, which there is precious little of in Afghanistan.

Also, IIRC they make flechette rounds for the 105, but not the 120.

Also, IIRC they make flechette rounds for the 105, but not the 120.

The US has a "shotgun" roud for the 120 that fires 1,100 10mm tungsten balls in a spread pattern.

The 105 is almost as good as the 120 for types of missions you'd use it for in Afghanistan, it's real shortcoming is in AT work, which there is precious little of in Afghanistan.
I was just a little amazed because most other main battle tanks were switched to 120mm. (Leopard 2A6, M1A2 Abrams, FV4034 Challenger 2, Merkava Mk 4)

I'd be surprised if they saw much tank vs. tank action.

Which is why the US has about as many troops than the rest of ISAF combined deployed right?:rolleyes:

If they were serious about Afghanistan they'd put some actual resources into the reconstruction effort.

And so what were we doing there prior to the posting of this thread? Macramé? Paint-by-numbers? Just how were we not sufficiently 'serious'?

They better get serious. They are taking a lot of heat and if they don't get more manpower and firepower, they might lose more control to the talibs.

And so what were we doing there prior to the posting of this thread? Macramé? Paint-by-numbers? Just how were we not sufficiently 'serious'?

If you can't recognize a figure of speech than that's your own problem.

I was just a little amazed because most other main battle tanks were switched to 120mm. (Leopard 2A6, M1A2 Abrams, FV4034 Challenger 2, Merkava Mk 4)

I'd be surprised if they saw much tank vs. tank action.

The Canadians haven't really used their tanks much lately so they haven't seen the need to devote resources to upgrade them.