September 2001

A note on Warfare

The use of armed forces in the future, Heavy vs Light Forces

Since the end of the cold war, the bi-polar world, the political landscape has changed dramatically. A large number of states in the western world cashed in the socalled peace dividend, lowered the expenditures of defence and decreased the number of forces under arms. There was a widespread believe that conflict and the chance of new conflicts had been over. The opposite proved to be true, new and old suppressed conflicts came alive and demanded the attention of the world community.

The nature of the conflicts had changed, as the world had formerly prepared itself to fight one big conflict between the two ideological blocs, the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R, or a more or less controlled representative war in a rather unimportant country between two ideologically different groups each linked to one of the superpowers. The new conflicts, internal conflicts and conflicts between two or more countries were of a different character and intensity. And above all most of them are little to none controllable.

The developed nations of the world wanted to do something to meet the pressures and dangers from the new actors and nature of the conflicts. The developed nations had to do something new to make up the lapse in capabilities since the demise of the East-West conflict and the speed with which new conflicts developed and which were relatively immune to political or even economical pressure.

New and lighter forces are to be introduced which could be available on a very short time span on every place in the world. Or better nearly every place. Together with these new lighter forces a new doctrine had to be invented when and how to use the light forces.

The return of the Light Brigade

Light forces, e.g. light cavalry and infantry, have existed since many years and were mainly used for reconnaissance, counter attack, surprise and other kind of missions where speed and deployability were the most important conditions. The speed and deployability had of course their price as protection, armour and support and logistics were less important and only rudimentary available.

In the years of the cold war light forces, airborne and infantry units, were of lesser importance and only used in support of the heavy forces which dominated the stand off. War and conflict was seen as a fight between large heavy armored forces rolling over the plains of Western Europe.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, the large armored threat out of the east disappeared making the existence of the large heavy armored formations less important. The conflicts which emerged after the cold war were less intensive and mostly combat between lightly armed forces, often even nothing more than armed para-militaries or guerilla forces against a light and outdated armed government army.

The place of combat was thereby often far from the developed world in less developed areas which are geographically beneficial to the use of light forces, e.g. mountainous, forested and remote areas.

The developed western world needed forces which would be able to react quickly and move fast without long deployment times and the need for host nation support en route or in country. The use of heavy armored forces, which require a relatively long time of deployment and more infra structural support, were therefore more or less excluded. The geographic condition further promoted the use of lesser armored vehicles and/or forces, e.g. light forces.

The need to modernize the forces, the need to react adequately to the new military demands ergo the need for light fighting vehicles and the economic benefits of replacing the heavy armored forces which are expensive to acquire, maintain, operate and deploy with lighter vehicles sounded very attractive to the military and especially to the finance departments.

The light forces returned to the spotlight and nearly all developed countries have some kind of program to re-introduce the light forces as a substantial part of the armed forces. There is not only an increase in airborne forces but also in light infantry or better the above mentioned units which use the light armored vehicles.

The light infantry is fast to deploy over considerable distances as they can be airlifted in large quantities. They are very mobile in their movements as they are fast and agile. They have enough fire power to eliminate the targets they most likely will meet in the expected low to medium intensity warfare. Superior intelligence, information warfare and fire power of lightweight artillery and missiles should further deliver the punch to win in a combat situation.

The main fighting power with the light units are the people fighting in the units. The vehicles are only a support element to bring them form A to B in relative safety and to give some fire support. The kind of operations which are momentarily in high demand, Peace Support Operations, PSO, or Peace Enforcement Operations are very good executable with these kind of forces. Manpower, mobility with enough firepower and stamina are considered the elements to make those operations successful. These are the reason why light forces are that popular again.

Armored vs Light units

The heavy armored forces which dominated the army landscape for several decades have been on the losing side. The heavy units have been cut in modernization, maintenance and operation budget. The air force, navy and even the infantry, airborne and special forces elements in the army received more attention. The heavy forces were considered less worthwhile as their use was in the PSO, peace enforcement operations on the first sight not that important and useful.

This could occur firstly out of the wish the save funds as the defence departments received lesser funds each year as other social and budget/financial problems seemed to be more important and got a bigger part of the cake. Secondly strategic questions like the increased use of the armed forces in PSO operations under the flag of the United Nations draw more attention than the armored forces which only seem to play a minor role in the majority of the PSO operations.

The question here is what is the position of the armored forces in the future. Do they deserve the role which they have been forced upon during the last couple of years? Are armored units representing only a small part of the army mainly to be tasked to defend the country from an attack and in the secondary role of supporting the light forces, infantry and airborne forces, in PSO operations?

The capabilities of armored forces have been greatly underestimated in recent times merely on the fact that they are more expensive and especially because they more difficult and slower to transport over large distances. And of course because they have been used incorrectly in a couple of conflicts. The most clear example of the ill use of armored forces has been the Russian operation to conquer Grosny, Chechnya, in the first Chechnyan uprising. A Russian company of Russian T-80 main battle tanks, MBTs, were destroyed in the attempt to take and hold Grosny. They were eliminated with an ease not only destroying the name of a rather good MBT, the T-80, but also discrediting the use of armored warfare in future conflicts.

Disregarding all historic knowledge of using MBTs in warfare, the MBT has to be accompanied with infantry to secure the area especially in all close in fighting. Even the highly capable and much praised Israeli Defence Force learned this lesson on the hard way in the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when they used MBT only formations without the necessary support of armored infantry and artillery. Previous experiences in the six day war in 1967 delivered that good results with MBT dominated units and the idea that the Middle East was not Europe where infantry and artillery support are absolutely necessary was the reasoning behind the move to have MBT only units. However the introduction of effective Anti Tank missiles and as the fighting closed in the MBT became vulnerable and could be destroyed by the opposite forces. The fighting power and morale of the IDF had been severely undermined by this heavy loss of MBTs and casualties.

In all wars the strength of an army depends on the co-operation of the combined arms team of MBTs, infantry and of course artillery and air support. They are equal partners in the equation. If one is considered less important the chance for success will diminish.

The MBT in the combined arms team has an important role even in urban warfare, the kind of warfare considered unsuitable for MBTs. All depends how to use the MBT, in what position. All parts of the combined arms team should be used flexible, in urban warfare infantry takes the leading role in open warfare the MBT will take the leading role but each is less useful without the other. The strengths of all should be used most beneficially to the team and all have a place. The combined arms team can maximize the possibilities and minimize the vulnerabilities, so increasing the fighting power of the unit and their chance on success.

The MBT is even useful in urban warfare if some rules are respected, and violating these rules could mean the destruction of the MBT. The MBT has to operate in the combined arms team, all movements has to be covered by the accompanying infantry, no spearhead operations, the MBT is to be used in urban warfare as a support and defensive weapon, not as a system to enforce a breakthrough and ofcourse the MBT should not stay to long in one place to attract the attention of the enemy as the MBT remains a great trophy to destroy.

Conclusion

The world has changed since the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the controllable conflicts of the bi-polar system. New conflicts emerged with other demands on the defence forces. There grew a demand for military units which could be deployed quickly over large distances and could operate without to much support and if possible were not to expensive.

The light units, infantry with wheeled light armored vehicles and airborne units fulfilled this demand. Efforts have been put in place by a large number of developed countries to increase the number of these units in the last couple of years to have a large number of these forces available to be used.

This at the expense of the existing armored units which are considered less usefull and valuable in PSO operations. This trend is likely to continue in the coming years but it could proof to be a to big investment into one kind of system with in the end a big headache as the light forces could not meet all demands. Or better met an opponent which has been to strong. The dominance of the MBT in the cold war period is over but to replace them with light armored vehicles coud therefore be short sighted on the medium to long term.

There is a need for a balanced defence force to encounter all possible eventualities including the defence of the homeland and expedition operations against a stronger opponent then the now encountered light armed units or para-military units which can be controlled by the light forces.

The defence forces of the future should be combined arms teams and they should be integrated at the lowest level possible. For example the brigade should be a combat formation with heavy armored units, armored infantry, light infantry and artillery.

They should train to co-operate on the lowest level to maximize the effects of all systems. If the co-operation between the heavy, light and artillery units is running correctly it can outmaneuver and outfire all existing and future opponents.

Combat operations can only be excuted correctly if all three work together and use their strengths. If only one part is used and others neglected it will just be a matter of time before they will meet an opponent who will destroy the strength of one system and tactic. Remind the Russian experience in Grosny or even better the Israeli one in the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

A comprehensive defence force with the strategy and tactics to use the capabilities of the combined arms team is the only way to avoid tragic incidents as happened if parts were left out. There are no short cuts to success and security. It is an all or nothing game and light only is just to little to make it if the going get’s tough.