Until the fighting in Iraq picked up a year ago with more car bombs and the like that highlighted why armor is critical to surviving, the conventional wisdom was that main battle tanks like the Abrams were obsolete. We needed light armor that could be flown to distant theaters. Since of course we'd see our enemies with our all-knowing sensor grid and shoot first, isn't armor a hindrance, they said. The Future Combat System, a high-tech, 19-ton little brainy mammal would send the Abrams to the tar pits.
Well no:
In the original Rumsfeld program, heavy armor, like the M1 tank, was a "legacy system" -- an archaic technology. Rumsfeld's Whiz Kids weren't the only ones who thought the tank passe. An Army buddy tells the story of a could-be Democratic appointee he escorted through DOD briefings. The pipe-smoking pontificator kept saying, "The tank's dead." My infantry pal finally turned to him and said: "Yes sir, the tank's a dinosaur, but it's the baddest dinosaur on the battlefield. You face one."
Iraq's war in the streets -- and yes, a new examination of 1993's tragic street battle in Mogadishu, Somalia -- have put tanks back on the Pentagon's agenda.
The May issue of Armed Forces Journal features a tough-minded article by Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute. Goure notes "the conventional wisdom" assumed that a "small ground contingent" would wield "decisive power" by deploying promptly and maneuvering rapidly.
"On reflection, it now appears that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The overriding lesson of recent conflicts, both conventional wars and counterinsurgency campaigns, is that some armor is good and more armor is better."
U.S. forces "are heavier than they were at the end of major combat operations in Iraq. A principle reason for this is ... uparmoring."
Goure argues that "the demands of survivability and tactical effectiveness are trumping the desire for strategic mobility."
Survivability cannot rely on seeing the enemy first and shooting first. I wrote in Military Review three yeas ago (actually I wrote it four years ago--it was printed three years ago):
It may be unwise to rely solely on a light FCS if the Army needs a survivable system. If it can find a way around deploying from CONUS, future heavy systems would not need to conform to the tradeoffs necessary for the FCS to get to the theater quickly, and they might exhibit the same dominance as today's MBTs. Pre-positioned future heavy systems, perhaps afloat, should not be overlooked. Where pre-positioning is impractical, sealift from CONUS must be faster. We may even need to explore deploying more forces overseas to get ground troops closer to potential trouble spots for the initial rapid response.Yes, we need a lighter vehicle to bridge the gap between foot-mobile infantry and the Abrams/Bradley combination. But heavy armor is not yet obsolete despite thirty years of claims to the contrary:
The collapse of the Soviet Union transformed our strategic environment overnight. More than a decade later, the Army still fields systems designed for that era. A new, lighter vehicle suitable for a wide range of missions is necessary. The FCS may solve the Army's strategic mobility problem, but it threatens to truncate the Army's dominance of the conflict if it is not as good as it needs to be. Even at 39 tons, the FCS may be too light if evolved MBTs retain their place on the battlefield. In addition, small numbers of FCS-mounted hyperinfantry will not be able to exploit their killing power in peace operations.
Excuse me for quoting my own stuff. But I have so few and it is kind of fun to be able to do this. Yeah, I need a better hobby.
Victory is not our birthright. Let me conclude with another quote from my article that stays with the dinosaur theme:
A dangerous assumption is to think victory is certain and the only challenge is getting to the theater fast enough. If MBTs maintain their dominance with suitable modifications, enemies will have a tremendous advantage over the revolutionary FCS. The Army will get many FCS to the theater, but they may well die in large numbers against evolved dinosaurs.
The Army should keep its heavy armor. And the Marines should have it, too.
