The US and tanks in Afstan

Chief of the Land Staff Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has recommended US forces bring tanks with them to Regional Command South. Here's a post in response at the American milblog Castle Argghhh!!!:

Tanks in Afghanistan

By The Armorer on March 16, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week,I had a post up that was loosely about the circular nature of innovation in war. It's really more about the circular nature of innovation in human society, when you get down to it, but that's a different post.

In last week's post the core of it was an article in the Toronto Sun that opened thusly:

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan — Three years of fighting in the dust-choked lanes and tangled grape fields of Panjwaii district have taught Canadian soldiers some hard, bloody lessons.

As the U.S. prepares this spring to surge 17,000 fresh troops into Afghanistan, they have two words of advice for their American colleagues: Bring tanks.

The post generated some supportive comments and some cautionary ones. In the interest of hearing multiple views, let's go with a mildly contrarian view this morning. Mildly in that it argues a downside to tanks and notes that the US forces have a different force structure, which may well make a difference in the need for tanks. From email:

My new boss just came out of commanding a helo battalion here in the Double A [82nd Airborne Division, the "All Americans"]. (Blackhawk pilot) He and his battalion spent a year operating out of Khandahar.

He’s got some opinions on the Canucks and their tanks. It starts with “Ploughing through vineyards and orchards with tanks is not the way to win the support of the locals” Keep in mind that those trees and vines take 3-5 YEARS to grow replacements... [I can attest to that, we're establishing various berry vines here at Castle Argghhh! - commercial fruit bearing plants take some time to get established. -The Armorer]

And what's the key terrain in a COIN fight ? THE PEOPLE .

Also, the Canadian LAV-IIIs only have 25mm guns. While these are great weapons, they’re not tank guns. The SBCTs [Stryker brigade combat teams] have the MGS [see here--the vehicle the Canadian Army ended up not buying, getting Leopard tanks instead], with 105mm guns, plus the TOW vehicles, which now feature “bunker buster” type missiles (much more useful in a COIN fight that the TOW-IIB top-attack anti-armor version.) .

The American forces going in in RC-S will also be bringing . something else the Canucks don’t have: helicopters, an entire aviation brigade worth (actually, our very own 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade [more here and here]) plus whatever the Marine Air-Ground Task Force brings. Which means two things: increased tactical mobility for the infantry, and gunships. The Taliban (and it is mostly TB down there, not HiG or HQN) don’t like to play when there are Apaches or Cobras overhead, eithe [our Griffons only have machine guns--the other type here]. . . .

That all sounds good to me - but there is one point raised in the Sun's article left unanswered - the LAVs getting bogged and having to be recovered by the tanks. There are some other glitches with the MGS, as this article by Christian Lowe observes over at Military.Com.

There's a "supports whatever viewpoint you want to argue from" article over at Defense Industry Daily, which is almost amusing in the lengths it goes to for balance. It looks like something I would write...

H/t to CAPT H (a Canadian tanker) and The Torch for the initial pointer to the article.