The use of lightweight cavalry vehicles or heavy machine gun armed utlility vehicles for fire support on overseas missions (not just by us) seems to be an accepted method of discouraging interference by local combatant or criminal elements.
But is it a safe assumption: Generally speaking peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions don't carry much in the way of long range striking power (Iraq and Kosovo being notable exceptions due to the high participation of Western Countries).
Also the potential enemy are often fractious and bereft of any sort of chain of command or even external information sources.
Finally given the possibility of UN missions effective collapse in terms of military effectiveness (I'm thinking of Sierra Leone and the Congo) it seems to me that its a foolhardy policy to rely on a few .50 armed APCs (or worse softskins) or light recce vehicles to deter an enemy force.
Of course addressing this threat has to be balanced with the considerations of logistical support, environmental impact and political sensitivities.
Modern MBTs are obviously a good solution in terms of survivability, mobility and firepower, but they are also high maintenance, loud, and threatening...perhaps forcing the Commander to choose between using them for close protection in built up areas and on roads or keeping them out of the way in the name of avoiding destruction to the infrastructure and frightening the local populace.
Wheeled Heavies such as the Centauro or Piranha with 90 or 105mm gun provide long range solutions but suffer much the same vulnerability as their .50 armed cousins in close proximity (although in terms of fire support and FCS they would be up to most jobs required of peacekeeping/Enforcement forces).
The equipping of WAPCs and IFVs with automatic cannon is another commonly popular solution although I personally see little advantage over the use of Cavalry vehicles (such as the Spanish VEC used in support of several of their deployments including Iraq).
Heavier tracked vehicles such as the CV90 offer a degree of survivablility and mobility than wheeled troop carriers, and although they create similar environmental impacts to MBTs, in Missions with large areas of wilderness or undeveloped rural areas to cover such as UNMIL that impact is lessened by the lack of developed road networks which inversely increases the usefulness of the vehicle.
Some lighter tracked vehicles (M113/ UD AIFV/BVS 206/210) can be fitted with rubber track pads that lessen their impact on concrete surfaces although the pads themselves are worn out fairly quickly.
So how should Armies (not just ours) be providing for organic fire support of Troops deployed on Peace Enforcement/keeping missions; are AFVs the answer at all?
If they are, should they use seperate fire support be provided by dedicated platforms or armed APCs.
Is the need for shorter ranged Autocannon type weapon systems or more traditional long ranged gun systems, or a mixture of both.
But is it a safe assumption: Generally speaking peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions don't carry much in the way of long range striking power (Iraq and Kosovo being notable exceptions due to the high participation of Western Countries).
Also the potential enemy are often fractious and bereft of any sort of chain of command or even external information sources.
Finally given the possibility of UN missions effective collapse in terms of military effectiveness (I'm thinking of Sierra Leone and the Congo) it seems to me that its a foolhardy policy to rely on a few .50 armed APCs (or worse softskins) or light recce vehicles to deter an enemy force.
Of course addressing this threat has to be balanced with the considerations of logistical support, environmental impact and political sensitivities.
Modern MBTs are obviously a good solution in terms of survivability, mobility and firepower, but they are also high maintenance, loud, and threatening...perhaps forcing the Commander to choose between using them for close protection in built up areas and on roads or keeping them out of the way in the name of avoiding destruction to the infrastructure and frightening the local populace.
Wheeled Heavies such as the Centauro or Piranha with 90 or 105mm gun provide long range solutions but suffer much the same vulnerability as their .50 armed cousins in close proximity (although in terms of fire support and FCS they would be up to most jobs required of peacekeeping/Enforcement forces).
The equipping of WAPCs and IFVs with automatic cannon is another commonly popular solution although I personally see little advantage over the use of Cavalry vehicles (such as the Spanish VEC used in support of several of their deployments including Iraq).
Heavier tracked vehicles such as the CV90 offer a degree of survivablility and mobility than wheeled troop carriers, and although they create similar environmental impacts to MBTs, in Missions with large areas of wilderness or undeveloped rural areas to cover such as UNMIL that impact is lessened by the lack of developed road networks which inversely increases the usefulness of the vehicle.
Some lighter tracked vehicles (M113/ UD AIFV/BVS 206/210) can be fitted with rubber track pads that lessen their impact on concrete surfaces although the pads themselves are worn out fairly quickly.
So how should Armies (not just ours) be providing for organic fire support of Troops deployed on Peace Enforcement/keeping missions; are AFVs the answer at all?
If they are, should they use seperate fire support be provided by dedicated platforms or armed APCs.
Is the need for shorter ranged Autocannon type weapon systems or more traditional long ranged gun systems, or a mixture of both.
Comment