Canadian tanks go 5-hole

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 (PDF!) 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."

Read the rest at Defense Technology International's ARES blog.

Comments

[J.]

Very glad that one field-grade officer's singular view into modern COIN has confirmed the role of heavy armor. I'm sure that the fact that his own background is in cav has absolutely no impact on his academic point of view.

But seriously, that's a good article, and I think the key take-away isn't that "heavy armor have a role in COIN" but rather "the correct application of heavy armor supporting COIN goals is very beneficial" is more accurate. Using tanks to blow up buildings in urban settings, NO. Using tanks to gain tactical survivability and maneuverability on complex terrain outside of urban areas, YES.

[paul]

Totally. He seems thrilled that his boys found a role in the fight, but I think he loses a bit of perspective. Tanks might be ok in some roles in Afghanistan, but I think their day is about done in Iraq.

[Brian H]

The enemy will exploit any lacks you show. If you fail to field tanks, he'll do things that require tanks to fight. If you field tanks, he'll try to avoid such (if possible). So an ounce of prevention ...