NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Different Strokes For Different Folks

June 25, 2009: Canadian officers in Afghanistan are having a hard time convincing their American counterparts to bring some M-1 tanks along with the additional combat brigades arriving this year. The Canadians have found tanks very useful while fighting the Taliban. In addition to being immune to enemy fire, the tanks can smash through the walls that surround the many family compounds that dot the Afghan countryside. There is also the fear factor. The Canadian tanks are scary, as well as deadly. When the Canadian troops have a tank along, the Taliban are usually very reluctant to fight.

During the rainy season, tanks are often the only way to get tracks or wheeled armored vehicles out of the mid. The tanks can also serve as an armored towing vehicle, to haul heavy, but disabled, vehicles, back to a base, through hostile territory. But the American commanders are reluctant to add the heavy logistical load even a few dozen tanks would impose. U.S. M-1 tanks have to be brought in one-at-a-time via C-17 transports, and consume enormous amounts of fuel. Moreover, many American commanders do not believe the tanks would be available for many missions. The American brigades will be operating over a wide swatch of territory, and have fewer opportunities to use the tanks. The Canadians have fewer helicopters, so they use the roads more often, and find having a tank along can, literally, be a lifesaver.

It was three years ago, Canada sent 17 of its Leopard 1 tanks to Afghanistan, to give Canadian troops there some extra firepower against the Taliban. But as the warm weather approached, the lack of air conditioning in these elderly tanks became a major problem for the crews. The age of the tanks was a factor as well, so Canada made arrangements with Germany, the manufacturer of the Leopard, to lease twenty of the most modern version of the tank, the Leopard 2A6M.

Canada is the last nation using the Leopard 1. The latest version of the Leopard, the A6M has considerably better protection against mines, roadside bombs and RPG rockets. The 62 ton Leopard 2 has a 120mm main gun and two 7.62mm machine-guns. The 43 ton Leopard 1 has a 105mm gun, and is actually a little slower (65 kilometers an hour). Both tanks have a four man crew. Germany is selling off some of its Leopard 2s, and offered Canada 80 of them at a bargain price (to be negotiated, but brand new, they cost $6 million each). Canada wanted to try out the Leopard 2 via the lease first, before deciding to replace all the Leopard Is. If Canada is to maintain a tank force, it needs new vehicles. The Leopard 1s are showing their age, especially with the workout they are getting in Afghanistan.

Some Canadian legislators have been inclined to do without tanks, but Canadian military experts pointed out that these combat vehicles can be useful in peacekeeping operations. Not only are they impervious to most weapons, but they scare the hell out of the enemy. The Leopard 2, introduced in the 1980s, is somewhat scarier than the 1960s era Leopard 1. Thus inspired, the Canadian legislators decided to buy 100 Leopard 2s from the Netherlands.

Army commanders are now under pressure to speed up the delivery of the Leopard 2s to the troops. As part of that, arrangements have been made to trade 20 of the Dutch Leopard 2s, upgraded to German standards, for the twenty leased tanks in Afghanistan. Eventually, the hundred tanks will be organized into two tank squadrons, with 20 tanks each. Another 40 will be used for training, and the remaining 20 will be converted to eight engineer combat vehicles (which can also be used as recovery vehicles), while the remaining 12 will be retained for spare parts.

The U.S. has thousands of M-1 tanks available. These vehicles are very similar to the German Leopard 2. So far, other foreign contingents in Afghanistan have been content to use infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and MRAP armored trucks. But the IFVs are more vulnerable to RPGs and roadside bombs, while the MRAPs and wheeled armored vehicles have problems negotiating the many dirt roads in Afghanistan. Tanks have none of these problems.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SUBMARINES: I Hear You, Yes I Do


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Bob Cortez       6/25/2009 6:30:02 AM
The Marines learned in Haiti that armored cars can be very useful in an insurgency: why the surprise now with tanks?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    It's not a surprise...   6/25/2009 9:20:11 AM
I would think.  The Small Wars Manual makes this point IIRC.... it's the logistic burden tanks represent.  Plus the support headaches, in Vietnam companies were split up, with small detachments spread out every where, consequently making maintenance and support very difficult.
 
It's not that the Army didn't or doesn't see their value, they'd be "nice," but are they essential and worth the greater cost?
 
Quote    Reply

The Drill SGT    So?   6/25/2009 11:41:43 AM
I would think.  The Small Wars Manual makes this point IIRC.... it's the logistic burden tanks represent.  Plus the support headaches, in Vietnam companies were split up, with small detachments spread out every where, consequently making maintenance and support very difficult.
It's not that the Army didn't or doesn't see their value, they'd be "nice," but are they essential and worth the greater cost?

While I don't necessarily disagree, I would make the following points:
1.  is the maintenance load that much different a helo unit?
2.  for better or worse, the USMC splits their tanks up into tiny packets and manages well.  As an Army tanker, I thought it was dumb, but it fits ther doctrine and seems to be the approach used by the Canadians.    
3. Beyond the "tanks are scary" benefit, don't forget the "Bullet Magnet" Effect.  Every round bouncing off that composite armor isn't a sucking chest wound on some grunt. 
4. How did the Canucks get their toys there?  C-17?
 
Perhaps some of the reaon we dont have tanks in Afghanistan is that the leadership there has generally come from the rank of Lite or SOF infantry, while the Iraq fight was run by the heavier types (and of course tanks were already there)
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C    they're worth it   6/25/2009 11:54:23 AM
We got the tanks there via C-17.
The maintenance is a factor, but if your driver keeps up on it , it won't be an issue. The heat is a bitch in the Leo 1 due to the hydrolic systems. The tanks have been fitted with a "chiller system" basically a air conditioner that feeds a water filled radiator vest that gets so cold that troopers are turning them off for periods of time during operations.
The Leo 1 's in theater are used for breeching with the mine plow/rollers and dozer attatchments, and the Leo 2's are for the QRF and firepower. (120mm heat does neat things to buildings and the canister round is sweet on persons within 600m)
In the Panjawai/Zari district it is very built up and has a lot of irrigation ditches, the Leo platforms ( including the Badger engineer variant) allow complete freedom of movement and give us the upper-decisive hand. So yes, it's worth it.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    TO&E   6/25/2009 2:47:25 PM
Once upon a time non armored and mechanized US Army units had an organic tank batt.  It might not always have been used or used properly but it was there and if need be each RCT or Brigade could have a tank company in support.  The USMC having remained an infantry centric and small wars centered force kept it's tank batt in it's TO&E and normally attaches a tank platoon to the BLT in each MEU; however, the US Army in it's wisdom pretty much got rid of the general purpose infantry division and then dropped the light tank batt from it's airborne, air assault, and light infantry divisions.
 
There is certainly a arguement to be made about combat benefits of attached tanks to infantry units in Afghanistan vs logistical load but there is also the issue of having to re-examine TO&E.  If tanks are needed in Afghanistan then where do they come from?  One does not take away the tank battalion of a two batt brigade leaving a mechanized batt as the entire manuever force of the brigade.  Thus one issue is the desire of Army leadership not to highlight this major self created TO&E issue.
 
Moreover, tanks being needed means the Army needs to then rethink having a tank batt in the division which again highlight problems in the TO&E.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

LB    TO&E   6/25/2009 2:47:34 PM
Once upon a time non armored and mechanized US Army units had an organic tank batt.  It might not always have been used or used properly but it was there and if need be each RCT or Brigade could have a tank company in support.  The USMC having remained an infantry centric and small wars centered force kept it's tank batt in it's TO&E and normally attaches a tank platoon to the BLT in each MEU; however, the US Army in it's wisdom pretty much got rid of the general purpose infantry division and then dropped the light tank batt from it's airborne, air assault, and light infantry divisions.
 
There is certainly a arguement to be made about combat benefits of attached tanks to infantry units in Afghanistan vs logistical load but there is also the issue of having to re-examine TO&E.  If tanks are needed in Afghanistan then where do they come from?  One does not take away the tank battalion of a two batt brigade leaving a mechanized batt as the entire manuever force of the brigade.  Thus one issue is the desire of Army leadership not to highlight this major self created TO&E issue.
 
Moreover, tanks being needed means the Army needs to then rethink having a tank batt in the division which again highlight problems in the TO&E.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

n1hook    Tanks   6/25/2009 10:10:42 PM
Where is a diesel engine for the M-1  tank?  The turbine needs protection from sand and dirt and use fuel prodigiously, has anyone documented how much high speed combat takes place to justify the turbine engine? The new lightweight diesel engines the Germans developed give virtually the same speed advantage with more miles per gallon and the reliability of a diesel engine.
Most tanks spend time idling, in an urban environment you won't be moving very fast and in support of infantry will be stopped idling  dash speed will always be there  but less trips to the fuel bowser with a diesel...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/25/2009 11:39:29 PM

I would think.  The Small Wars Manual makes this point IIRC.... it's the logistic burden tanks represent.  Plus the support headaches, in Vietnam companies were split up, with small detachments spread out every where, consequently making maintenance and support very difficult.
I don't think its as simple as that though (ie gets down to doctrine issues).  eg in Vietnam the then prevailing view was that heavy tanks would be an embuggerance more than a benefit.  That view was certainly disrupted when Australia fielded Centurions - they proved their worth in the jungle when the previous concensus was that they'de be hindered in operations.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    About Armoured Support   6/26/2009 9:18:57 AM
I think if you split units up into platoons and smaller detachments the problem is that maintenance is company based...so many M-88's per company, so many maintenance folks and tracks and HMMWV's per company...and if the company is split up, suddenly 2-4 tanks need an M-88 and some maintenance folk, and certain spares that an infantry unit isn't likely to have, or even fuel in amounts an infantry unit isn't prepared to provide...and then there are personnel issues.  Again an infantry battalion isn't going to be providing you the maintenance and armour MOS positions you may need in the event of casualties...
 
That's what I was getting at, that in Vietnam tanks in small detachments were a pain...they were useful, but a pain, too, because they were spread out in penny packets making it difficult to recover, repair, refuel, rearm, and re-crew....
 
I think it is a good point that like Vietnam, the opening volleys in Afghanistan were waged by LIGHT INFANTRYMEN, who may or may not see the need for "tread-heads."
 
Bottom-Line: Tanks are nice, but they are a logistics nightmare at the end of 10K kilometre LoC, do they provide the tactical "umph" that pays for their heavy logistics footprint?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    N1hook   6/26/2009 9:22:06 AM
It's not like you can just "pop" the new diesel engine into the M1 and away we go...it's a multi-year, multi-million dollar project you're talking about here....
 
People have been complaining about the turbine engine from BEFORE its adoption....and yet the M-1 seems to perform just fine with it.  Mayhap we ought to just let this issue go?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

britbiker    make-do   6/26/2009 10:05:13 AM
Does the National Guard still have those M-60s?
Borrow some of them and send them over,
along with some grizzled mechanics and crews, etc.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I don't believe there are any M-60's   6/26/2009 10:14:36 AM
in the active inventory of any US forces, by "active" I mean vehicles that will be used....there may be M-60's stored away for FMS Programs and MAP, if that is still a program, grants to countries, but I don't believe the USA, USARNG, or the USMC currently field ANY M-60's and haven't for a decade.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Tanks Supporting Infantry   6/26/2009 12:19:38 PM
The USMC has been attaching a tank platoon to it's infantry battalions for many decades.  It might be a "pain" at times but it's not a major problem.  The US Army for around 50 years normally had a tank battalion organic to it's general purpose infantry divisions with tank companies often assigned to RCTs or Brigades with tank platoons often attached to an infantry batt.  One does have to attach a tank plat to an infantry batt and in some cases it might not be able to be employed for various reasons but one should preclude use of tanks in direct infantry support because of preconceptions about it being a "pain".
 
Moreover, the army forced itself to rely on MBTs when it retired the M551 without replacement and then canceled the M8 in 1996 and then took away all the MBTs from every unit except heavy brigades which all now have 1 tank battalion in a 2 battalion "brigade" so it made things rather difficult in regards attaching MBT's to infantry brigades.
 
The US Army has a serious problem with it's TO&E when every infantry formation has to go outside division for tank support and there are no independent tank battalions to draw from nor any light tanks for our airborne, air assault, or light infantry formations.
 
Quote    Reply

The Drill SGT       7/1/2009 8:55:54 AM
I think if you split units up into platoons and smaller detachments the problem is that maintenance is company based...so many M-88's per company, so many maintenance folks and tracks and HMMWV's per company...and if the company is split up, suddenly 2-4 tanks need an M-88 and some maintenance folk, and certain spares that an infantry unit isn't likely to have, or even fuel in amounts an infantry unit isn't prepared to provide...

I think you are showing your age :)  My specialities included both Armor and Force Development, and am out of touch as well however, as of 1997, the 17375C series TO&E's had no mechanics and no M88's in tank companies.  all maint assets are at BN or deployed using Maint contact teams from DS.
so it's not so much an issue of not beng able to split them (maint assets) out into penny packets, they are designed tht way. Rather that the frontage (AO)  might be extended. .  And of course trying to send contact teams out to isolated fir bases could be problematic. :)
 
Having said that, grunts never understood my log requirements when I was attached to my mech BN.  This as the M60A1 era with even lower POL requirements, but I remember on several occasions requesting a can of 90 weight and 60 weight oil, and getting a jeep sent out with 2 one quart cans, when I was looking tor 2 five gallon cans. 
 


 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy