Is the Abrams Battle Tank a Sacred Cow That Can’t Be Cut?

Democrats and Republicans continue to wrangle over the looming budget sequestration that would cut over $100 billion dollars of spending on January 1, 2012. We’ve discussed this so-called “fiscal cliff” and its automatic defense spending cuts before on Real News, but now we are looking at a specific piece of that fiscal fight: Abrams battle tank refurbishment.

Is the Abrams Tank a Sacred Cow That Cant Be Cut?

Abrams Battle Tank

Readers of the Blaze are no doubt very familiar with the Abrams tank variants (M1, M1A1, M1A2). I would venture that some of you have even driven one, and certainly others fought in close proximity to them overseas. They’re no doubt fearsome weapons, and in a tank-on-tank fight, there is probably no better tracked vehicle on earth.

But military preparedness is also about conserving and wisely deploying your resources in preparation for the next fight. And it seems some military spending cuts may be unavoidable given the current fiscal and political climate. So here’s what is on the table, according to NBC News:

The Pentagon could save “as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.”

I know there could be some grinding teeth right now among Blaze readers. By DOD standards, $3 billion dollars sounds like what is costs to upholster the seats on a few F-22 fighters (no cup-holders). But we need to take a real look at this debate, because conservatives need to establish that any non-essential public spending is in fact expendable, including very specific defense cuts.

First, I would offer the statements earlier this year of General Raymond Odierno. Odierno, formerly the top military commander in Iraq and widely regarded as a General’s General, said in a February defense hearing that America may be stuck with “280 tanks that with simply do not need” under the pre-sequestration plan for refurbishment.

Watch Buck discuss the Abrams tank on TheBlaze TV/GBTV:

There are also strategic issues at play. Some military analysts have been tolling the bell for tanks going back years. Yes, mobile armor was a major innovation in the First World War, and a decisive battlefield component in the WWII and many following conflicts. But for the recent “small wars” of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, a huge hunk of steel that vibrates windows a few city blocks away isn’t always the best tool for the job, and they are vulnerable to IED’s and urban ambush.

In fact, the U.S. ended up leaving many tanks– and other pieces of heavy weaponry– behind in Iraq. According to some estimates, 2.4 million pieces of military equipment, including over a hundred tanks, were left in Iraq when the U.S. pulled out its forces this past December. The U.S. was paid for some of it, but clearly at a steep markdown.

So the tank may soon be playing a more secondary role on the modern battlefield. That’s up for debate, but it’s only one part of this discussion.

There is also the issue of cold, hard Pentagon budgets, and how they can be influenced from the outside. There are indications that defense lobbyists continue to weigh into the Abrams dispute at critical junctures and have been very generous to certain Congressmen. Defense spending policy should be driven by military need, not re-election cycles. NBC News described the timing of political contributions from General Dynamics, the maker of the Abrams tank, here:

“Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year.”

Meanwhile, spokespersons for General Dynamics have suggested that the contributions coincide with Congressional fundraisers– which just happen to coincide with key Congressional authorization milestones for the Abrams. Everybody seems to point fingers at the other guy.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. If Republicans want to keep the Abrams tank refurbishment program– instead of focusing on a complete redesign, as some are proposing– then that should be based solely on what best serves our war fighters. If pet Pentagon programs are allowed to thrive because of connected contractors, it will be easier for Democrats to muddy the political waters and make the case that mission-critical programs should also be on the chopping block.

Most conservatives have an initial gut reaction against military cuts, and this is understandable. National defense is one of the clear — and undisputed — enumerated powers granted the Federal government in the Constitution. And when we see $500 million of taxpayer dollars flushed down the drain over boondoggles like Solyndra, it’s hard not to start counting how many Abrams tanks that would have bought (or funding for veterans programs, training, you name it).

But our political and strategic national defense realities are not static, and our mounting deficit alone is a national security concern. Democrats will threaten to chop at defense spending with an ax unless Republicans show a willingness to use a scalpel, when appropriate. And we need to recognize that in a $680 billion dollar annual budget, there is bound to be some wasteful spending. Senator Rand Paul has been making this point now for months.

If conservatives are serious about getting our national fiscal house in order, that means a willingness to look at all spending. Unlike green energy subsidies or pork-barrel earmarks, defense spending is easy to explain to the American people, who will overwhelmingly support it as critical to our national interest.

But we cannot let Democrats hold other defense spending hostage because some Republicans are reactionary. If there are cuts to be made, let’s evaluate that, and make the necessary adjustments. Otherwise, the DNC tax-and-spenders will use GOP intransigence to take us all closer to fiscal insolvency.

I hope that Blaze readers and Real News watchers will weigh in with comments so we can really hash this out.

Comments (56)

  • Leader233
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:38pm

    The M1 tank was conceived over 40 years ago and entered US service 32 years ago. It has been the finest tank in the world for the last 32 years and a revolution in tank design. It has gone through a number of modifications since it entered service in 1980 (the longest a model of tank has stayed in continous service). Armchair strategists pronounced the death of armored warefare in 1945 (because of nuclear weapons), Then proclaimed it dead again in 1973 because of wireguided Antitank missiles and handheld antitank weapons used in the Yom Kippur war. Once again in 2012 they are trying to say due to counterinsurgency warfare the day of the tank is past. Anything that persistently proves its critics wrong should be maintained!

    Report Post »  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:54pm

      LEADER233 Is correct. The sneaky part of the appropriations in question, is simply restoring the returning tanks into combat ready status. Watch your highways and rail lines closely. There are hundreds of pieces of equipment that are being transported to holding areas awaiting release of funding to rebuild and refit. We are low on vehicles ready to deploy. That is how Obama and company can continue dragging feet on readiness. A good way to slow ready status is to keep the stuff in the field too long between re fitment.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
    • Wolfgang the Gray
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:30pm

      When WWI started, we were behind in military equipment (both technically and numerically). When WWII started, we were behind in military equipment. Carter cut defense so much we had to cannibalize fully functioning equipment to provide parts for spares. Just because we‘ve had these small wars doesn’t mean we won’t have big ones in the future. Iran is nuking up and Russia & China are on their side. I’d rather keep the M1 and not need it than not have it and need it. If you want to cut something big, retire one boomer sub. They are built to act as a retaliation weapon anyway (after we’re all particulate matter in the upper atmosphere). Ohio class sub – $2Billion. M1A2 – $6.1Million. One sub pays for 322 tanks. Don’t put all your eggs (money) in one basket.

      We could also save $3,358 per month by taking one Radical Islamic Major from Ft. Hood and put a .50BMG right between his eyes for being a traitor.

      Report Post » Wolfgang the Gray  
  • macpappy
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:31pm

    Tanks have had their day, Tank killers are too plentiful, and with the use of drones the future of tanks will need re-thinking. They are so cool tho.

    Report Post » macpappy  
  • Captain America
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:27pm

    Before military cuts, we should aggressively cut some of these entitlement programs that just keep feeding lazy, anti-American Demorats. The moderate Dems don’t exist anymore. The current party is a leach on the American Republican that our founding fathers would immediately recognize as the prime enemy to our country.

    Report Post » Captain America  
    • Wolfgang the Gray
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:16pm

      I agree, but these cuts were setup as a threat to force Congress to do real spending cuts. They didn’t do their job (we should fire the whole lot) so these cuts are coming. If we don’t cut spending now, then nobody will get funding when the economy collapses. Not saying I’m for dumping the M1. How many tanks can you buy by not buying a new submarine?

      Report Post » Wolfgang the Gray  
  • Elena2010
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:18pm

    Reminds me of Eisenhower’s warning abt the military-industrial complex selling you what you don‘t need and leading you where you don’t want to go.

    The Abrams can take apart a city block, but is that our target? Are we going to fight the Russians or ChiComs any time soon? If not, we don’t require an upgraded Abrams.

    Report Post » Elena2010  
    • The_Almighty_Creestof
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:31pm

      Wasn’t there a comedy regarding this tank? About how its design went on for years and years?

      Report Post »  
    • OlefromMN
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:35pm

      The Abrams can “take apart” smaller defined targets. Would just equipping the Air Force will umpteen thousand more MOABs be more to your liking? Each tool in the shed has a purpose and until we have a better alternative to the Abrams, we need to keep it as sharp as possible.

      Report Post » OlefromMN  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:10pm

      ELENA2010 We may indeed fight the Russians and Chinese, and sooner than later.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
  • teddrunk
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:06pm

    More money for chemical & biological warfare. You don’t need tanks. Just gas them or give them Ebola.

    Report Post »  
  • GoodStuff
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:00pm

    Both the GOP and the Dems are cowards. Military spending is historically low, it doesn’t need to be cut anymore. These cowards are too afraid to go after the real problem, which is dependecy programs like SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Cowards…all of em!!

    Report Post »  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:03pm

      So you are saying there is zero waste in the defense department? You say the spending is historically low. Can you please post your source on that.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • OlefromMN
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:11pm

      @Mutiny,

      I am so sick and tired of the line “so there’s no waste in military spending?” I am sure there is, but it’s time we cut entitlements to the bone and get to the real meat in the debt. Art. 1 Sec. 8 calls for a military and it’s support, let’s look to the the extra-constitutional line items first.

      Report Post » OlefromMN  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:18pm

      @ole

      I am all for cutting that to. I am crazy Ron Paul supporter who thinks a trillion dollars should be cut. I am 100% behind cutting entitlements. We are going to collapse regardless, this game is coming to a end soon because the GOP establishment will not face reality and see no one is going to attack us, and the left will not see that entitlements need to cut and phased out.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
  • RANGER1965
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:59pm

    It’s becoming way to easy to take out tanks these days. The top down, light weight Javelin missile is just one example, and of this writing the Javelin is now old school.

    Armor is not keeping up with the destructive power, portability, and just plain ease of function of anti-armor destructive power. Not even close.

    When a single infantry soldier can fire a light weight, fire and forget missile that has variable smart flight characteristics, has a range of over a kilometer, and almost unerring kills it’s target from the top down, then one must re-think things.

    Explosive warhead technology has become so advanced that a relatively small charge (less than 3 pounds) can be channeled at the point of impact to become a needle fine point of explosive energy. Briefly producing a spear of white-hot plasma which can penetrate almost any armor, including ablative types. This plasma jet enters the interior of a tank and kills the crew from stellar hot temperatures and over-pressue. The heat usually cooks off the ammunition as well.

    All this from a missile whose actual cost is about 1000 bucks. A multi-million dollar tank and a well trained crew wasted by a shave tail rookie and a cheap missile.

    Lets put some serious money into armor technology before fielding a new tank.

    RANGER

    Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:09pm

      Very good assessment.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:04pm

      There are always counter measures to a weapon. Like the device that punched a 1/2 inch hole through an Abrams a few years back. That technology emanated from Russia. Advances in armor will appear. We do not need to cut mobile artillery platforms which is also a tanks mission in the field. Someone might need a target taken out at a longer range than a man held device is capable of accomplishing.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
    • RANGER1965
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:13pm

      I’m not advocating doing away with tanks entirely, and certainly not artillery. The tank mission is unique and necessary in the modern battlefield. It does things that airpower just cannot do well. The problem is that armor advances have not kept up with advances in armor penetration.

      There are some promising technologies involving carbon and diamond nano-tubes which if it can be fielded will change this dynamic, perhaps forever. According to estimates 1cm of diamond nano-tube armor would be equivalent to 6 feet of homgenous steel armor plating.

      But like renewable energy, we ain’t there yet. So lets not build new multi-million dollar tanks when a missile costing 1000 bucks and carried by private Snuffy can reliably take them out.

      Because if I was the supreme leader of the People’s Republic of (Fill in the blank), and I had a limited budget. I wouldn’t be buying a tank brigade, I would be buying a jack load of anti-tank missiles, and mines.

      Report Post » RANGER1965  
  • FedUpWithLibs
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:58pm

    I’m okay with some military cuts as long as its done responsibly and not just some liberal slashing away making the equipment work when you need it to. There’s nothing worse than a weapon failure when your in the middle of a fight.

    Report Post » FedUpWithLibs  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:58pm

    Cut food stamps, foreign aid to people that hate us, quit bailing out private companies, quit funding PBS and Planned Parenthood quit throwing good money after bad on ficticious green energy scams…keep the damned tank, we may need them.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • bpodlesnik
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:23pm

      While I agree with your other cuts, I’m going to disagree with you on keeping the tank this time Gonzo. I think the tank is to just to old school anymore. Weapons nowadays are becoming to powerful and easily operated, and while the Abrams tank was certainly a great machine with some serious fire power, I just don’t think it/it’s going to cut it anymore.

      Report Post » bpodlesnik  
    • flsnipe
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:57pm

      My thoughts exactly!

      Report Post » flsnipe  
  • v15
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:54pm

    Tomahawk Missiles and laser-guided MOABs. Thousands of them. AC-130s for air support. If the enemy runs into a mosque, then blow up the mosque. If the enemy runs into a building, then blow up the building. Above all else, give the military the weapons they need to fight with. No more half-assed wars!!

    Report Post » v15  
    • Sgt_Rock
      Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:51pm

      I agree, but weapons are not the issue…the rules of engagement are.

      Report Post » Sgt_Rock  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:53pm

    I say all we have to do is put a picture of scowling Moochelle on the front of each tank and her face will scare the enemy away.

    Report Post »  
  • OlefromMN
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:46pm

    Yawn. $100B in a $4T dollar budget and these fools need to go to the military immediately? Just name names before November so we know who to send home.

    Report Post » OlefromMN  
  • TacDoc113-18D
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:41pm

    We will be sorry if we let the M1 go when the next large scale international conflict breaks out.
    The Pentagon is being foolish if they think we have evolved so much as a global community to exclude a world war.

    Report Post » TacDoc113-18D  
    • lawrench
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:00pm

      The question is if the Pentagon stops the upgrades to the Abrams, do they have something else in the pipeline? After every conflict there are people that looks at works and at what does not work. In an urban battle, tanks do not work well in the wars where we want to limit non combatants deaths. If you want to destroy a town, that is a different story and tanks work well. But with more political scrutiny about injuries to non combatants it will be difficult to keep battle tanks in the arsenal.

      Report Post » lawrench  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:20pm

      @law

      Read Rangers post on why tanks are outdated. Also if you are going to destroy a town, just level it with missiles and bombs. No need to risk troops on the ground.

      We need to quit invading, occupying, and then rebuilding these places (tanks are great for this). We are broke.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
  • historyguy48
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:37pm

    Comrades this is just part of the cuts that will be made this year. Frankly, I am more concerned with the massive buying of body armor and other items currently being done by homeland security since this is all for domestic violence.
    Obviously they intend to create a bit of domestic violence.
    Wonderful!
    The Abrams does need to be upgraded or redesigned because it is very close to being a second grade tank.
    Look at our good friends the Chinese, Russians, and Israeli’s for the best tanks currently available.

    Report Post » historyguy48  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:25pm

      China and Russia are not our friends. Tanks made by them are used against us.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
  • gothope
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:35pm

    This plant is about 10 miles from my house.It is one of the only privately owned milatary providers in the country. I have friends who work there and they make good money(90$ hr on triple time). If they shut it down it will probably cost more than the savings to restart it not to mention the loss of talent that now exists there. However they have been surviving by selling tanks to the likes of SUADI ARABIA and EGYPT. I hate to see it go but those policies are stupid.

    Report Post »  
  • Damocles
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:32pm

    As a former tanker and mi-historian, I can tell you that development of a new MBT is an expensive process. For the time being, we should refurbish what we have, as none of our enemies tanks can really measure up.
    And shame on the government for leaving behind so many vehicles that we paid for. A perfect example of government waste run amuck.

    Report Post » Damocles  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:29pm

    Well I have to ask what war will we be fighting for tanks to be needed? A tank is a awesome weapon but its very limited. The wars of thousands of troops fighting out in a valley over a hill are over.

    The United States dominates the battlefields because of air and sea power. Land power is not needed. We dont need to invade and occupy anyone. As cool as they are, I dont see a use for the tank in the future wars. On the other hand, they will be very useful for the government if they decided to crack down on the skulls of the US citizens.

    Report Post » Mutiny  
    • mastice
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:39pm

      I am sorry, but NO war has ever been won simply by dominating the air and sea. Boots on the ground are what win wars… always have, always will.

      Report Post » mastice  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:54pm

      Not sure if you noticed but we havent been winning many wars lately. That type of warfare is over. No country in the world is going to take the battle field against and its not because of our tanks.

      Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world and hundreds of tanks. The problem he had was he couldnt stop our air and navy power. No one on earth can. Not the Russian or the Chinese either. I want us to maintain the strongest military in the world by a long shot but reality is we are going broke.

      We need to stop the taking over nations and nation building crap. If we go to war, declare war dont invade their cities, level their cities. People give up quickly fighting against planes and missiles. When you give them targets IED and RPGs can hit they keep fighting.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • lawrench
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:07pm

      @Mutiny

      While I may agree that we did not win anything in Iraq, and we are not winning in Afghanistan, there is still a place for a battle tank in warfare. It may not be the main machine of warfare, but there is still a place for it. What weakness was discovered during Iraq and Afghanistan should be used to plan what weapons are needed for future conflicts. The world has seen the weakness of our military. We have not focused on the new urban battlefield as a possible theater in war. Tanks can still take large areas of the battlefield, but they are not any good in the urban theaters, there needs to be something in the pipeline to help our military fight in the urban landscape and help defeat the IED’s that are becoming commonplace.

      Report Post » lawrench  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:15pm

      @law

      The weakness other people see is not in our military men or our equipment. Its in our diplomacy and our economy. We are going bankrupt trying to be the policemen of the world. Diplomatically we are willing to lie down with anyone and it has come to light and it stinks.

      No country will go into a real land battle against us. If we actually declared war and handled war like it is supposed to be “brutal” then no country or even groups of countries would even think of crossing us.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:19pm

      I may add Obama cut our Air Force and Navy.

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • Damocles
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:01pm

      Land power is not needed? Since when? Sorry, but history does not agree with you. Infantry need support, and that support comes in part from the tank.

      Report Post » Damocles  
    • lawrench
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:18pm

      @Mutiny

      You may be correct that battle tanks are not needed in future wars. But why take the chance? Many army’s still use tanks (Russia, China, Iran, and Syria). Why eliminate something from our arsenal? I am not saying to spend trillions for massive amounts of battle tanks, but keep them in the arsenal and possibly replace with newer and better tanks. Currently, the Air Force is cutting back the F-22 Raptor, but what do we have to replace it? I do not think the JSF is a viable option for us. The F-22 does have an enormous cost, but what will we do when Russia and China surpass the capabilities of the JSF or the F-16? The one thing that our government is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Cutting the military equipment is not a good idea, but spending too much for what we need is also not an option. So if we are to stop developing equipment, then we must upgrade what equipment we have now.

      Report Post » lawrench  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:46pm

      @law

      The point is we are broke. I would rather funnel those dollars to drones, missiles, jets, bombers, and ships.

      Once drones became an attack platform tanks became obsolete. I am pretty sure we have anti tank missiles on drones. You made my point by saying China, Russia and other still have tanks. If they still have them, we dont need them.

      We spend 10 times the next closest country in military spending(China). Our military is so far advanced than theirs amazing. They are using stealth tech we had in the 70s now and are happy with it. They have one aircraft carrier which has a ramp deck which can only have limited types of planes take off of it.

      The idea that any country on this planet could threaten us a joke, barring us collapsing economically. Then anything can happen. We have to stop the economic collapse now or we wont need a foreign invasion, we will eat ourselves.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
  • Damocles
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:29pm

    This is misdirection. As a former tanker and mil-historian, developing a new replacement is an exensive process. It would make more sense at this time to refurbish the fleet. Furthermore, leaving so many vehicles behind in Iraq is a perfect example of government waste. Tsk, tsk….

    Report Post » Damocles  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:28pm

      And we sell the good stuff to the enemy.

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:22pm

      DAMOCLES….You are correct. They do not understand that suppressing fire from the enemy can be done miles out of range from an insurgent with a missile. A force working as a team consists of many parts. They should appreciate the military as a whole. Also a USN battle group flight deck had flown over by Sukhoi aircraft flown by Russian pilots, as well as the same group (Kitty hawk) seeing a Chinese song class sub emerge within torpedo range. This within past two years. We need them all…No cuts. Cold War II is here folks.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
  • lawrench
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:25pm

    Here is the issue as I see it. The Pentagon has to decide how battles will be fought in the future. If the Pentagon expects for Country vs. Country wars will be fought, then battle tanks will be needed. If more battles are fought like Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought, battle tanks are not needed. One has to be careful to think ahead decades and the ever changing enemies we may have to fight. People should also keep in mind Russia is attempting to become a Global Power that will fight with tanks and missile’s to expand their power globally. However, Iran will fight more a guerrilla style war. While battle tanks can be intimidating, they are slow and worthless in an urban war. They are however, very good in open territory and can be used offensively and defensively. Tough decisions are ahead, and hopefully the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon make the correct decisions.

    Report Post » lawrench  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:39pm

      LAWRENCH…You need to look maybe at “Air and space technology” websites of Russian aircraft.

      Russia sits awash in more oil than all of the Middle East. Putin and his thugs have been cranking out stealth aircraft and nuclear subs quietly for several years. The joke is, they convinced us to dismantle their obsolete Nukes and freed up extra cash to build TOPOL-M road mobile ICBM’s with mirv capabilities. Lots of them.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  
  • mastice
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:22pm

    I understand that we need to ‘retool’ our military on a regular basis to face the ever evolving threats we face… BUT, I think it is a very wrong assumption to make that a main battle tank is impractical in today’s combat situations.

    While I don’t see mass scale tank battles, like we prepared for during the Cold War years, I still believe we need to keep the Abrams in our arsenal. Even a reduced number of them. (I don’t have a clue what our current stockpile of these tanks are – but if it is a lot then maybe we could do with half… but not NONE of them)

    Report Post » mastice  
    • mastice
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:37pm

      I mean, not to say that this will ever happen, but imagine if you decide to completely rework our ground forces. (like Rumsfield wanted to do during the Bush years)

      Light infantry fighting vehicles, towed (air dropped) artillery, specialized infantry units (SEALS, Rangers, etc)… basically rapid reaction and deployment forces. (which are not bad to have on hand)

      What happens when we shift completely to this focus and we find ourselves on the field of battle facing off against Chinese made Type 99 main battle tanks? What are they going to do? Shoot .50 cal round or grenades at them until air support arrives?

      No, sorry. As I said above, I personally think that a diverse fighting force is what we need to continue to maintain. This includes a good main battle tank.

      Report Post » mastice  
  • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:21pm

    Hmmmm, I say let them rot. After all, these will be pointed at us sooner or later.

    Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
  • kuntry044
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:20pm

    Wouldn’t it be a good idea to refurbish at least 1/4-1/3 of them to ensure they are ready to go in case they are needed (Syria comes to mind for some reason) until we get the next generation out?.

    It is getting to the point I trust fewer of the military officers due to all the PC garbage. These are the same people paying how much for “green” jet fuel

    Report Post »  
  • John 3:16
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:17pm

    Keep the Tank and improve it. Get rid of Mooshell Obama, a tank herself, and her vacations and pay for it.

    Report Post » John 3:16  
  • SCREW-WINDOWS
    Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:14pm

    Go oldschool nothing beats the skill and knowledge of a true soldier after the EMP hits.

    Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • SCREW-WINDOWS
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:21pm

      When the last functioning weapon is a musket how many of todays soldiers have the skill and know how to use it.

      Report Post » SCREW-WINDOWS  
    • Metalstr8jckt
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:31pm

      SCREW-WINDOWS…I could use a dull spoon, if I needed to.

      Report Post » Metalstr8jckt  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love