can c-17 and c-5 do the no land drop thing that they do with the c-130 so they don''t have to land. you know where the equiptment is on a pallette that slide out teh back off of rollers and uses a parachute to pull it off the plane.

The C-17 has a roller delivery system. Heavy equipment is pushed out a few feet off the deck. This action would likely tear up a strip like the one at Kirkuk. I do not know if an Abrams has ever been deployed in this manner and survived. I've seen it used for pallets of equipment, supplies, IFVs (Bradleys, LAVs),and light artillary.

i thought i saw some were that they developed a special pallet to deliver these kinds of loads i can understand how it might not be possible with a 70 ton tank though. how about on a concrete runway or could we develope a field just for this by flying in construction equiptment?

I have been looking in the globalsecurity.org target data base for Iraqi paved 1000 meter plus airfields that could support the landing of C-17s by Air Force standards. I have not found one that is not near a large Iraqi force in Northern Iraq. It looks like it will be only C-130s landing at these unimproved runways out in the hinterland of Kurd country. C-17s will provide on the deck pallet logistic drops. Note that the commentators now have the 173rd Abn. North of Irbil and not at Kirkuk Afd as earlier reported.

I also got the impression that the kurds were working on one of teh air bases before we landed troops is there a way they could extend a runway to support a c-17. I just though of how in WW@ we use metal plated driven into teh dirt to support aircraft on contructed runways in the japanese islands to fly b-29's off of. do we have that capability. I thought if we could reinforce the landing pad and then extend the roll out we might be able to land a larger plane. any one ever heard of some hting like this. or would we have to send in engineer to pour a long heavy runway to support large aircraft?

Fred: We do not need the C-17 to land. We will continue pushing the stuff off on the field. The AF has never transshiped an Abrams tank for combat purposes. I do not think they are going to start now.

ok do you think they would take sheridan that way.

The 82nd Abn was/is deactivating their Sheridan light tank. This vechicle was last produced in the early 60's. By the late 60's in Vietnam the aluminum hull was cracking even then. The Shillelagh missile tube on the Sheridan and the M60-A2 was considered a dud by the 70's. It is obsolete and the only reason that it may still be around in the 82nd is that they have not found anything light enough to replace it.

I had just heard other talking about this tank. so will the 1st ID go in with out the armor group or are they not organized like the other mechanized units with a group of abrams? I just wonder why we don't have some type of system that can be air lifted to confront MBT's, or do we depend on air support to cover this?

IF Turkey does not allow passage thru their country of our forces. We have a number of systems to confront enemy tanks. But tank forces are all we have to TAKE and HOLD GROUND in enemy armour country.