The Courier-Journal April 07, 2003
War may affect decision over replacing current tanks
War with Iraq Strategy and politics
By Michael A. Lindenberger
The future of battle tanks and Fort Knox's role in defending the nation could depend in part on the war in Iraq.
For decades the centerpiece of American ground wars, the use of tanks has been under scrutiny on and off the Iraqi battlefield, where some top commanders have questioned whether enough troops and tanks were used in the initial phases of the war.
That debate is a small part of a larger discussion about the future of the armed forces, a process that for the Army is expected to involve replacing traditional tanks with lighter, faster and more mobile units.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is pressing for a transformation across all the services. With the Pentagon expected to decide about the Army's changeover by next month, both sides in the tank debate are closely watching what is unfolding in the war.
Nearly 300,000 troops have been deployed to the Middle East, and about 100,000 of them are reported to be fighting in Iraq. Many of those soldiers are depending on air raids, helicopters and lighter overall support than tanks could provide.
Analysts say the reliance on speed and technology is classic Rumsfeld strategy, but others note that heavierthan-expected resistance from Iraqis may have underscored the value of tanks -- particularly the top-of-theline M1A1 Abrams.
''These tanks are incredible,'' said retired Marine Lt. Col. Phil Anderson, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ''They offer just an incredible capability to bring to bear in a fight.''
Replacing the tank?
If the Pentagon decides to proceed with the changes, research like that under way at Fort Knox will play a role in the development of technology for the Objective Force -- the name for the future ground fighting force that will replace the Army's current configuration of four-man tank crews.
If they move to the next stage, Army planners say they hope to have the first units built by 2008 and ready for use by 2010. The Pentagon would gradually phase in the new combat systems in the next decade.
In the meantime, an interim weapon system, the Stryker -- wheeled, light-armored vehicle -- is being used. Two Stryker brigades have been formed, and the Army expects to form several others with funds made available next year.
Though the vehicle to replace the tanks has yet to be built, its specifications have been established by the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki. Plans call for a vehicle that will be lighter than 20 tons, faster and more fuel-efficient than the current tank and yet provide as much firepower and safety as the Abrams.
Brig. Gen. Robert Mixon, deputy commanding general at Fort Knox, said work will not begin on the new vehicle until a decision is made to proceed with the multiyear effort.
In December, many of the assumptions that underpin the development of the new battle unit -- such as its collaborative use of various armed services and its use of high-tech communications -- were tested by international war-game experts at Fort Knox.
The tests were conducted using computer simulators that allowed each side to role-play various combat situations. Many participants were former combat officers testing the assumptions of what the new combat systems could do. The simulation used satellite maps of a real city in eastern Europe and took the participants -- some played soldiers; others, civilian militia; still others, members of nongovernmental organizations -- through several days of simulated fighting.
That test was successful; a similar exercise will be held this spring.
A powerful weapon
Questions about the value of the Abrams tank do not extend to its power as a fighting machine, or its ability to protect its crew.
Of the more than 1,800 tanks deployed in the first Persian Gulf War, nine were destroyed and no soldiers among the tank crews were killed.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom, two Abrams tanks were destroyed early in the war by the enemy, though all eight crew members escaped. On Saturday, another Abrams was destroyed, apparently by a rocket-propelled grenade, during an incursion into Baghdad. And in an incident still under investigation, another tank veered off a bridge and into the Euphrates River, where all four members of the crew drowned.
The Abrams was designed for a massive ground war, in particular the kind envisioned as possible between the Soviet Union and NATO in Europe during the Cold War. More than 8,000 Abrams tanks, made of steel encased with depleted uranium, were built for the Army and Marine Corps. They have 1,500-horsepower engines and 120mm smooth-bore guns that can fire on the fly, and they can achieve speeds over 40 mph.
In the latest conflict in Iraq, the tanks' firing range is several hundred meters beyond that of the top class of tanks that the Iraqis acquired from the former Soviet Union.
Anderson said what's most powerful about the tank is its ''survivability.'' It can take a hit and keep moving, he said. With the kind of protection it offers, troops can slowly but steadily advance against resistance, he said.
''With the Abrams you can advance your troops with little fear of the enemy,'' he said. ''What we are trying to do in Iraq is still doable with a smaller footprint, but it is a hell of a lot easier if you have a force-projection weapon like the tank.''
A new approach
To Shinseki and others in the Army's top echelon, transformation is about regaining a sense of relevance that many felt the Army lost in the 1990s, as the Air Force and Navy began to take on a greater responsibility for American's wars.
In that decade, conflicts in Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia and elsewhere relied far more heavily on smaller-scale engagements or massive air strikes. The battles were too quick, too small or too far away to properly use tanks.
In the Kosovo conflict, Fort Knox leaders conceded that tanks would not have been able to play a decisive role even if President Bill Clinton had called in ground troops. Bridges could not have supported the tanks' weight, and engineering work would have taken several months before the Abrams could have been brought to bear.
Because of their weight, Abrams tanks have to be transported overseas by cargo ships, rather than planes -- slowing their deployment.
As the Afghanistan war against terrorists and the Taliban unfolded, the wisdom of the new approach gained support, and Pentagon officials moved up deadlines for the development of the Objective Force.
Despite the Abrams' strengths, Anderson said it doesn't fit well in the overall goal of a lighter, faster vehicle.
''They are trying to come up with something that is as lethal as a tank, but light and agile or more readily deployable,'' he said.
Protection is key
Mixon said he and other senior leaders understand the importance of replacing the Abrams with something lighter and faster. But if they get it wrong, he said, soldiers' lives could be at stake.
If the Pentagon gives the go-ahead for Objective Force and the replacement tank, Mixon said he and others are certain to have a big sales job ahead.
The tank -- first developed by the British in World War I -- has been the linchpin of U.S. ground forces since at least World War II, he said, and battle-tested traditions of the Army are particularly strong.
The key to a successful transformation is that the new vehicle -- in addition to being faster and lighter than current models -- must offer the same level of protection.
''That is a tall order,'' Anderson said. ''Maybe we will get there, and maybe we won't. But I sure wouldn't want to be in this fight without that tank.''
Early research has focused on using communications technology to enable each soldier to know far more about the enemy's whereabouts, minimizing the chances that a U.S. unit will be fired on.
If the tank's replacement is fast enough -- and its operators welltrained -- it may not need as much armor, Army officials said.
Pat Garrett, an associate analyst at the Washington-area think tank GlobalSecurity.org, said observers will be looking closely at how battles are fought in Iraq. Some previously held convictions -- such as that large-scale ground wars for which tanks were designed are a thing of the past -- will be re-examined, he said.
''A growing and more influential camp here in Washington has begun to see this as a new era for international affairs,'' Garrett said. ''They look at what the president said after 9/11 and take it literally,'' and expect another four to six major conflicts in the next decade.
''They are trying to come up with something that is as lethal as a tank, but light and agile or more readily deployable,'' retired Marine Lt. Col. Phil Anderson said.
Brig. Gen. Robert Mixon said he and other senior leaders understand the importance of replacing the Abrams tank with something lighter and faster -- but it must be done right.
Copyright © 2003, The Courier-Journal.
