Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Susan Sarandon: The government tapped my phone [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)Tanks and MICV are both gas hogs and maintenance headaches. When I was in the National Guard in the 1980s my unit had M113s, the rule then was for every two hours running, you had an hour of maintenance. We had to make sure the Air Filter, Diesel Filter etc were clean. We had to grease the tracks on an almost daily basis, and we only used them two weeks a year (the regular maintenance on the M113 were done by permanent party people on the days we were NOT on drill).
Tanks were worse, two hour of maintenance for every hour in use. I suspect the MICV M2 above is about one and one.
For example the M1 tanks gets .5 mpg. i.e. It takes 500 gallons to go 265 miles, or 1.9 gallons per mile. The cost of the M1 was 4.3 million each. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams.
The M113 goes 300 miles for it 95 gallons of diesel or about 3.15 miles per gallon.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
The M2 Bradley (which were on the train) cost $3.11 million dollars a piece and have a range of 300 miles using 175 gallons of diesel for a 1.7 miles to the gallon.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/M2.html
Please note, none of the above figures are EPA miles, but the "best case" for each. In actual combat expect less then half those numbers.
Tracks last only about 2000 miles until they have to be replaced, this assuming the Tanks are using the "Rubber" interconnected tracks the US have used since WWII. The Soviet comments on those tracks that they did NOT give enough traction in mud, preferring older steel to steel tracks which had to be replaced every 500 miles. This is from a Russian WWII report on the Sherman that also spoke highly of the 76 mm gun the later Sherman tanks came with, thus it was NOT a propaganda report but a report based on the Sherman tank as used on the Eastern Front during WWII. I can NOT find that report at the present time, but it was interesting to read.
For more on weapon see Federation of American Scientist Web site:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
Please also note that unlike people traveling to and from work, Tanks can NOT go to the local gas station to fill up. If they are any gas stations when a tank shows up, it is either destroyed or otherwise made unusable. Thus when tanks are used, each tank has to be followed by a tanker full of fuel to re-fill it when needed. These tend to be tractor Trailers who fuel economy carrying the fuel that they do, it about the same as the M113 at best.
If you treat Tanks like the Rain, something you have to endure while it is raining, or in the case of tanks moving around the area, when the rain or tanks move elsewhere you can assume your military mission. This is what the Viet Cong did in the 1960s and 1970s, it is what the Taliban is doing today to the US forces in Afghanistan. Tanks are great weapons to take a place, but it is a lousily weapon to hold onto the same place. When tanks move elsewhere, attack their supply lines and sooner or later you will win.
My point is the M2 on the train mean nothing, if you understand their limitations. In Iraq, the Iraqis understood their limitations and the US ended up withdrawing and leaving the Shiitte (Closely allied with Iran) and the Sunni (Closely allied with Al Queda) in charge. The only area the US had a ally to survive the withdraw, was the Kurds, and the Kurds were Under US Protection BEFORE the US invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. In short what did the US win by attacking Iraq? Saddam no longer being in charge is NOT that big a deal, given who did win things, Al Queda among the Sunnis and Iran among the Shiites.
Tanks can take areas, they can NOT hold them. If you remember that fact, the M2 on the train would cause you no concern as to liberty.