CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Armoured Vehicles  –  NATO / ISAF  –  Southern Afghanistan  –  August 2006 Armour for Afghanistan – ISAF Military Leaders Agree: Troops  Need  More  (and  Better)  Armoured  Vehicles Excerpts of an article by  Ron Synovitz of  Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty* The countries with  troops in Afghanistan as part  of  the NATO-led  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are discovering that they need better protection from roadside bombs and land mines –  the weapons most commonly used  by  Taliban fighters.  Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and  Germany all  have recently ordered  light armoured vehicles to replace their  less-protected  military transport in Afghanistan and  Iraq.  The freshly deployed Australian  Special  Forces  (SASR)  have also  brought  a dozen armoured personnel carriers [APCs] for their work in southern Afghanistan. US forces found  that  tanks  were not  suited  to combat  in Iraq and Afghanistan When US forces invaded  Iraq in March of  2003, the advance across the desert to Baghdad was spearheaded by  M1 Abrams tanks and  M2 Bradley IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles). Tank commanders like Sergeant Jerold Pyle spoke confidently about their vehicles – knowing that even the best of the Iraqi Republican Guard’s Soviet-era tanks were no match for the US M1 Abrams.     “The Abrams was made to fight the Soviet Union, designed back in the 1980s.”     Pyle told RFE/RL. “It’s been updated over the last 20 years, until [now] it’s the     best tank in the world.  This is the heavy armour  –  this is the tip of the spear.” A few weeks  later,  however,  when  Pyle became one of the first US soldiers to enter Baghdad, his M1 Abrams tank was destroyed in an ambush by Iraqi ground troops, [who had  learned to employ urban]  guerrilla  tactics. [See: Matt Fisher article] 'Lessons learned' were clear for US military planners Heavy Abrams tanks,  with their clanking  metal  treads and fuel-guzzling engines, can dominate a battlefield in the open  desert.  But  many of  the  advantages of  the large tank were neutralized  in  an  urban  guerrilla  war. US troops on the ground in Afghanistan US military officials told  RFE/RL  that  they  did  not  deploy  their  heavy  armour into  Afghanistan,  because  the  mountainous  terrain  was  not  deemed  suitable for a  tank campaign  against  guerrilla  fighters.  They said  that  the  barrel of  the main  gun  often cannot be  raised enough  to fire on  targets at  higher elevations. So, for the last four years,  US soldiers in Afghanistan have conducted most low- land patrols  in lightly-armoured cars called ‘Humvees’ (the M1117 or  HMMWV). Small  US commando teams are often dropped off  in the mountains by helicopter, relying on support  from coalition aircraft,  when they engage militants  in combat. NATO/ISAF  countries  must  tailor  army  acquisitions  to  the  Afghan  Mission Countries like Canada,  Romania [left], and  Germany have provided some armoured personnel carriers for troops in Afghanistan in the past.  But  there are not yet  enough of  those vehicles for  the thousands of troops deployed  this year  as part of  the NATO-led expansion into the south. Equipment sent with many of  the  newly arriving  troops  has been  chosen  for speed  and  mobility  rather than  armour  protection. Thus, most ISAF troops in Afghanistan now rely on [unarmoured or light add-on armour fitted] vehicles such as utility trucks or Land Rovers [which do not have] adequate protection against the kind of attacks carried out by Taliban guerrillas. [CASR comment: There are limitations to adding on armour to existing vehicle designs. Land Rover 4x4s (right) can lug comparatively heavy armament, extra fuel, etc. or they can be loaded with add-on armour. Such vehicles are usually  neither powerful enough or strong enough  to accomodate both armour plate and  a  reasonable payload. The trade-off becomes critical when the vehicle must be light enough for helicopter trans- port/hoisting or  where very heavily armed for its size –  such as the Australian ‘Long Landy’ (left) a longer wheel-base, 6x6  Land Rover derivative.] Resurgent  Violence  in  Southern  Afghanistan Facing a resurgence of militant violence in southern Afghanistan, several nations in the NATO-led mission now recognize that  their soldiers need  more protection. “The reason most of these armies are now buying new armoured vehicles is [that] these vehicles are specifically protected against land mines and IEDs (improvised explosive devices),”  said  Ian Kemp,  an  independent  defence analyst  based  in London.  “And  the  IEDs  are  certainly  the  most  lethal  threat  which  the [ new insurgent ]  opposition  forces  are  using  –  both  in  Afghanistan  and  in  Iraq.” In  recent  months,  the  governments of  Britain,  Canada,  the  Netherlands,  and Germany  have  all   faced  domestic  criticism.  [ Citizens  have  argued  that  their political and military leaders  have not provided ]  troops  with  adequate  armour.  As  a  result,  all  have  announced  the  purchase  of  [ new  armoured  vehicles ]. [CASR comment : Britain has ordered 400+ Panther CLVs ( left ) and  86 Mastiff  PPVs, both V-hulled blast-resistant vehicles. The Germans ordered 149 similar Dingo 2 patrol vehicles for use in Afghanistan.  Canada is filling an option  for  25 more Nyala APVs.] Australia has deployed about a dozen Bushmaster IMV for use by its Special Forces in Uruzgan Province. [ The SASR will use these blast-resistant ‘Bushies’ to replace their older, soft-skinned ‘Long Landys’. The Australian Army refer to their Bushmaster as an ‘Infantry Mobility Vehicles’ rather  than as ‘armoured personnel carriers’.] As  Head  of the  NATO / ISAF  Mission,  the UK  is under  Pressure to  Perform The British Ministry of  Defence  has  ordered  the  most  new  armoured  vehicles. [The  blast - resistant  Panther  and  Mastiff  are  described  above.]  Another  100 armoured  Pinzgauer Vector  [light trucks]  were purchased  in July,  and are set to be delivered to Afghanistan in 2007,  joining  a fleet of  66 bought earlier  this year. Speedy  And  Mobile  Armoured  Vehicles When the armoured  Pinzgauer is delivered, what  Afghans will  see on the desert plains of Helmand Province – where the British are deployed  –  are vehicles that look more like six-wheeled camping vans than an armoured personnel carriers or tanks. [Vector, at left.] “It’s an all-terrain vehicle, a cross-country truck,”  Kemp said.  “They’re  running on wheels ... on tires.  [So]  they can move at much greater speeds across roads.” “What the company has done recently is develop [ from an earlier design, the Truck Utility Medium, right] an armoured version.  In extreme, boggy terrain, [ the Pinzgauer] doesn’t have the mobility of  a tracked vehicle,  but  in an operation such as Afghanistan, most of the coalition forces are [now] deploying wheeled, armoured vehicles.” Kemp has been closely following how the tactics of guerrilla fighters have [driven changes in British] acquisitions. “There has been considerable criticism about the equipment of British forces – both in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” Kemp said. “Most of the equipment in [British] service ... was designed during the 1980s and 1990s.” “The difficulty with them [vehicles such as the tracked Warrior  Infantry Fighting Vehicle] is that  they are quite heavy to ship, and they are quite intimidating when they are actually used on operations. They also suffer from the fact  that  they are expensive to operate, being tracked vehicles.  What the British Army was missing was the spectrum of light and medium armoured vehicles.”  [Ed:  the British  Army did have a handful of wheeled Saxons in Kabul.  These early 1980s-vintage APCs, about to be replaced by Vectors,  are now being  rebuilt as armoured ambulances.] Kemp said he thinks that some of the new British Pinzgauers could eventually be left  in Afghanistan to bolster the equipment of  the Afghan National Army. [Ed: currently, the ANA is mostly equipped with the ubiquitious open pickup. Ford Rangers and Toyota Hilux are available but very vulnerable.] *  Radio  Free  Europe  and  Radio  Liberty  –   (RFE/RL) RFE/RL is a private, nonprofit corporation which receives  US federal funding as a private, nonprofit grantee. RFE/RL's  corporate  board of directors is composed of nine  (9)  Presidential appointees to the  Broadcasting Board of Governors,  which has oversight responsibility  for all  non-military,  international  broadcasting  that receives  funding  from  the  US  Government.