Tanks for asking
The dark hour of the knotting of panties is upon us. News that Canada will send 15 Leopard tanks to Afghanistan has prompted all kinds of jabbering in the world o' blogs, and also in the world o' newspapers.
Cheerleaders for the conflict have been a-fluttering their pom-poms and a-tossing their ponytails while chanting, "Razzle, dazzle, siss-boom-bah, LASING SABOT rah-rah-rah!" War-blogging baton-twirlers, meanwhile, look on and play with their batons. And that, dear reader, is as far as I can take this metaphor on a family blog such as this.
On the other side of the stands, there is much wringing of hands over what is characterized as the government's escalation of the conflict. The Globe & Mail, in keeping with what is apparently its long-standing editorial policy, finds the most negative ideas it can, and magnifies them to critical proportions. For example, the Globe tells us that "by buttoning down [sic] inside a tank, Canadian soldiers could also end up losing personal contact with locals, which is crucial in building public support."
Debunking the Globe & Mail's sloppy and dishonest reporting on this story would require more typing than I'm willing to do. Suffice to say that the total number of the 2000-plus Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan who will be buttoned up in those fifteen Leopards will be ... 60.
That should put all the cheering and hand-wringing into perspective.
Let's be clear. What the government is sending -- if the proposal is approved -- is the Leopard C2 tank. The Leopard is operated by a crew of four (driver, gunner, loader and crew commander). It does not carry troops, and is not a substitute for the LAV III. Its frontal armour is essentially impervious to RPGs and other mere pop-guns, but this is not to say that it is invulnerable. The side and rear armour is thinner, and a roadside bomb could easily render a Leo immobile by damaging tracks or suspension. If that were to happen, and an ARV was unavailable, the crew could be forced to destroy the tank in place -- not something you'd like to see, if you only had 15 of them.
The Leo mounts a 105 mm gun along with two 7.62 mm machine guns. The 105 mm gun is aimed using thermal sights and a laser rangefinder. It is fully stabilized, meaning that remains laid on its target even when the tank is moving across rough terrain. Wind sensors correct for crosswinds. Temperature sensors correct for the effect of air temperature and density. There's even a laser sensor on the end of the gun barrel to correct for droop -- that is, for the way the end of the gun begins to droop under its own weight as it heats up from repeated firing. This system can hit a target the size of a car door on the first try at two kilometres, with a 105 mm high explosive squash-head shell that makes a very loud bang.
Sorry. Nearly lost control of my baton there. Where was I? Let me just say that a tank is the most powerful direct-fire weapon on the battlefield. If you want fire support it is, as the kids say today, the shiznit. If you were an infanteer advancing on Taliban positions in the Panjawli district this past week, you would have been glad to have a Leo nearby.
Tanks never operate alone. They're organized into troops (platoons) of four, commanded by a Lieutenant. Four troops make up a squadron, with an an additional three tanks in the squadron headquarters. The proposal to send fifteen tanks means sending a weak squadron with three troops (platoons, not soldiers). (Presumably, the CF now uses three-troop squadrons because there aren't enough tanks for full squadrons.) So what Afghanistan is getting is a single tank company (or sabre squadron, as a classy blogger would say) of 60 men, organized into three troops, plus their logistics tail. The notion that tanks will soon be rolling all over Afghanistan, as promoted by the Globe, is a trifle overblown.
Nevertheless, one point must be granted the hand-wringers: this does, indeed, reflect a serious escalation in Afghanistan. That's not because, as some have suggested, we're escalating the conflict by sending tanks. On the contrary: we're sending tanks because the conflict has escalated.
The sign of that escalation is the events of the past few weeks, culminating in the battle for control of the Panjawli district. The Taliban, for whatever reason, are now behaving not as an insurgent force, but as a conventional ground force. Their confidence, as recent events have shown, is misplaced, but that's beside the point. The Taliban will be beaten every time they try to stand and fight, and will eventually retreat back into "conventional" insurgent tactics, but this will take time. And all the while, the clock is ticking on hearts and minds.
What the deployment of Leos means is that it's time to ask some serious questions. Not partisan questions, but simple questions about what we're doing. Beginning with, what specific reconstruction goals will we achieve, on what schedule? What is, in short, the new plan?
X-posted from the Wonderkennel, to keep Damian happy. Happy, Damian?
Cheerleaders for the conflict have been a-fluttering their pom-poms and a-tossing their ponytails while chanting, "Razzle, dazzle, siss-boom-bah, LASING SABOT rah-rah-rah!" War-blogging baton-twirlers, meanwhile, look on and play with their batons. And that, dear reader, is as far as I can take this metaphor on a family blog such as this.
On the other side of the stands, there is much wringing of hands over what is characterized as the government's escalation of the conflict. The Globe & Mail, in keeping with what is apparently its long-standing editorial policy, finds the most negative ideas it can, and magnifies them to critical proportions. For example, the Globe tells us that "by buttoning down [sic] inside a tank, Canadian soldiers could also end up losing personal contact with locals, which is crucial in building public support."
Debunking the Globe & Mail's sloppy and dishonest reporting on this story would require more typing than I'm willing to do. Suffice to say that the total number of the 2000-plus Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan who will be buttoned up in those fifteen Leopards will be ... 60.
That should put all the cheering and hand-wringing into perspective.
Let's be clear. What the government is sending -- if the proposal is approved -- is the Leopard C2 tank. The Leopard is operated by a crew of four (driver, gunner, loader and crew commander). It does not carry troops, and is not a substitute for the LAV III. Its frontal armour is essentially impervious to RPGs and other mere pop-guns, but this is not to say that it is invulnerable. The side and rear armour is thinner, and a roadside bomb could easily render a Leo immobile by damaging tracks or suspension. If that were to happen, and an ARV was unavailable, the crew could be forced to destroy the tank in place -- not something you'd like to see, if you only had 15 of them.
The Leo mounts a 105 mm gun along with two 7.62 mm machine guns. The 105 mm gun is aimed using thermal sights and a laser rangefinder. It is fully stabilized, meaning that remains laid on its target even when the tank is moving across rough terrain. Wind sensors correct for crosswinds. Temperature sensors correct for the effect of air temperature and density. There's even a laser sensor on the end of the gun barrel to correct for droop -- that is, for the way the end of the gun begins to droop under its own weight as it heats up from repeated firing. This system can hit a target the size of a car door on the first try at two kilometres, with a 105 mm high explosive squash-head shell that makes a very loud bang.
Sorry. Nearly lost control of my baton there. Where was I? Let me just say that a tank is the most powerful direct-fire weapon on the battlefield. If you want fire support it is, as the kids say today, the shiznit. If you were an infanteer advancing on Taliban positions in the Panjawli district this past week, you would have been glad to have a Leo nearby.
Tanks never operate alone. They're organized into troops (platoons) of four, commanded by a Lieutenant. Four troops make up a squadron, with an an additional three tanks in the squadron headquarters. The proposal to send fifteen tanks means sending a weak squadron with three troops (platoons, not soldiers). (Presumably, the CF now uses three-troop squadrons because there aren't enough tanks for full squadrons.) So what Afghanistan is getting is a single tank company (or sabre squadron, as a classy blogger would say) of 60 men, organized into three troops, plus their logistics tail. The notion that tanks will soon be rolling all over Afghanistan, as promoted by the Globe, is a trifle overblown.
Nevertheless, one point must be granted the hand-wringers: this does, indeed, reflect a serious escalation in Afghanistan. That's not because, as some have suggested, we're escalating the conflict by sending tanks. On the contrary: we're sending tanks because the conflict has escalated.
The sign of that escalation is the events of the past few weeks, culminating in the battle for control of the Panjawli district. The Taliban, for whatever reason, are now behaving not as an insurgent force, but as a conventional ground force. Their confidence, as recent events have shown, is misplaced, but that's beside the point. The Taliban will be beaten every time they try to stand and fight, and will eventually retreat back into "conventional" insurgent tactics, but this will take time. And all the while, the clock is ticking on hearts and minds.
What the deployment of Leos means is that it's time to ask some serious questions. Not partisan questions, but simple questions about what we're doing. Beginning with, what specific reconstruction goals will we achieve, on what schedule? What is, in short, the new plan?
X-posted from the Wonderkennel, to keep Damian happy. Happy, Damian?
posted by AJSomerset at 4:58 p.m.
5 Comments:
Ecstatic, my armoured canine friend. Positively twirling my baton, or whatever metaphor you were going for there.
Discussion here at work about the Leopard..
I understand there is a variety of RPGs being used but how would the Leopard stand up to them?
We could always send the oldest Leos on a one-way trip and leave them as a gift to the Afghan Army :D
Don, the Leo armour is several times thicker than the LAV-III, and the LAVs have proven (from news reports) surprisingly resilient to RPGs.
A lot depends on where the tank gets hit. The turret front, for example, is pertty much impervious to something like an RPG. The turret sides are well sloped, which helps to deflect rounds and makes the armour effectively thicker. But generally the sides and rear of a tank are vulnerable to RPGs.
Observor69: Guardian reporting.
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home