So you think that heavy tanks—entire squadrons of heavy tanks—have no place in a counterinsurgency fight? You better take it up with Major Trevor Cadieu of Lord Strathcona’s Horse, the storied Canadian armored regiment.
Recently returned from his second tour in Afghanistan, Maj. Cadieu has taken to the pages of The Canadian Army Journal to argue that tanks are an integral part of the fight in Afghanistan. In December 2006, the Canadians deployed a squadron of Leopard C2 tanks armed with 105-mm L7A3 guns, which come with computerized fire control systems, thermal imaging, and a laser range-finder. The Major writes that “after deploying forward… the tank squadron and armoured engineers featured prominently in all major combat operations undertaken by the Canadian BG… Since May 2007, the tank squadron has fought almost constantly alongside Canadian and Afghan infantry in close combat with the Taliban.”
Maj. Cadieu quotes Lieutenant-Colonel Omer Lavoie, commanding officer of Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group as saying, “If you’d asked me five months ago, ‘do you need tanks to fight insurgents?’ I would have said, ‘No, you’re nuts.’” But “Because [the Taliban] are acting conventionally, then conventional assets like tanks, armoured engineering vehicles, and armoured bridge-laying vehicles certainly have their place here.”
One of the big knocks against using tanks and heavy artillery in a COIN fight is that both weapons systems have the very real potential of killing innocent civilians and causing collateral damage. In Maj. Cadieu’s estimation, this isn’t the issue that many make it out to be. Since commencing combat operations nine months ago, he writes, “Canadian tanks have killed dozens of insurgents in battles throughout Kandahar Province, yet there has been no suggestion of civilian deaths attributed to tank fire during this entire period.”
Maj. Cadieu admits that tanks are difficult—and expensive—to maintain and service in the harsh conditions of Afghanistan, and cautions against splitting tank units up into sub-squadron teams, since doing so detaches them from the logistical support that the whole squadron comes equipped with. But other than those difficulties, his article is a full frontal assault against those who don’t think big guns and heavy weapons platforms have much of a place on the asymmetric battlefield.
He has a point where Afghanistan is concerned, since the Taliban still emerges from time to time to try and fight conventional-type battles, but in other places—like Iraq—his love of the tank might prove less useful.
Photo: Major Trevor Cadieu
In panjawii there seems to be very little cover and, it seem to be a plateau. Almost perfect for tank operations as long as they dont get hung up in any mountainous areas.
What do you think?
A US Army study during the Vietnam War found that around half of South Vietnam was accessible to main battle tanks. This is particularly noteworthy when you realise that much of South Vietnam is made up of the Mekong River Delta, one of the largest in the world and most inaccessible to anything other than waterbirds.
The Australian Army used tanks extensively in WW2 in New Guinea, Bougainville, Borneo and other tropical jungle covered islands. In Vietnam we extensively used Centurions. And they weren't just used as infantry support tanks in attacks against fortified positions (though this was the main role) but also for patrolling and cordons. The sight of three Centurions rapidly moving and dominating roads and farmlands was a common one in Phuc Tuy province during the Vietnam War.
Tanks are an important part of the combined arms team in any terrain and conflict intensity. One might as well go to war without artillery...